More on “uncouthness” and class conflict
After I wrote yesterday’s post criticizing the idea that it is Trump’s “uncouthness” that constitutes the major objection of Trump opponents to electing Trump as president, I got to thinking about why this “they hate him because he’s uncouth” type of meme might be so pervasive. I believe that one reason some Trump supporters keep claiming it is that it serves to reflect and further stir up feelings of sensitivity and resentment about class that have long existed on the right as well as the left.
That’s part of what all this “GOPe” “establishment” “elite” talk has been about, too. The populist flames have been fanned for years against the Republicans, some of it deserved but some of it just demagoguery for ratings—from talk shows, bloggers, and pundits. Some of them absolutely believe what they are saying, and some probably don’t.
I wrote this about the phenomenon back in April:
The attack on the GOP from within (that is, the civil war as opposed to the separate attack from the left) relies on words such as “elites” and “establishment.” But those are classic leftist words””as pejoratives anyway, with “establishment” being a leftist word that I recall being popular in the 60s, along with “the system” (which I don’t hear that much about nowadays, along with “the man”).
It’s all another example of how leftist activist techniques are used by the alt-right (some of whom are actual leftists), as well as by talk show hosts and by other pundits, to stir up the “masses” (another leftist word) against the GOP. Now the GOP has its deep flaws, but it’s been nowhere near as bad as people say, and not even remotely as bad as the Democrats have been.
Even Newt Gingrich, who has been an “elite” for many decades, has gotten into the “elites” act…
For some people, it resonates quite strongly with other parts of their life experience. For some, it’s just an act of cynical manipulation. But in any event, many of these people have chosen Trump as the perfect vehicle for the sentiment. But it wouldn’t have worked if the ground hadn’t been prepared for years. “Country club Republicans” and “Rockefeller Republicans” were earlier manifestations of this class consciousness and class conflict on the right.
Trump himself is, of course, a rich man. A very rich man. What’s more, he’s been rich and powerful all his life. He likes to act like he was a self-made man, but he’s not—although he seems to be an industrious man and a very hard worker. He’s also, however, a rich man who came from a rich family and who got even richer, and he is also good at self-promotion.
Trump was not born a blue-collar, working class guy. However, his family—he grew up in Queens rather than Manhattan, for example, although it was an expensive part of Queens—had a slight “wrong side of the tracks” vibe. Although Donald was born into wealth and always had every privilege, his father was the self-made man. And it was his father who made sure his son Donald knew about the working man’s side of things, by making him learn about many aspects of the building trades by working them for a while in connection with his buildings (I can’t find the source for that at the moment, but I’m pretty sure I read it in a Trump biography).
I don’t hold Trump’s being born into wealth against him. He has worked hard at real estate development and at self-promotion, and now he’s bearing the fruit. But why was Romney excoriated as a patrician and Trump not? The difference was actually more about style and perception than reality, about appealing to a different base in the GOP and elsewhere. Trump is a populist—an unlikely populist, but a populist nevertheless. Romney was many things, but populist he was not.
And to circle back to the beginning, I believe that populism is the source of these simplifications of the objections of Trump’s opponents, the desire to brand them as elitist snobs who look down their noses and sneer at the base.
That’s a laugh, history professor Gingrich as a populist. It’s as bad as Limbaugh earlier this past week weighing in on the NeverTrumpers by saying they/we wouldn’t vote for Trump even if Hillary murdered someone. He followed it up with a mock put-down of people at National Review, feigning to be William F. Buckley and in soto voice saying “ah, they’re not our type of people don’t you know” as if he is now the up from hardscrabble, Will Roger’s of the 21st century. Tell us it all about it Rush, when you get off the golf course or step down from your Gulfstream and retire to your estate in Palm Beach. Don’t get me wrong, you deserve what you’ve earned, but just stop with the pretense you’re just one of the common folk.
neo,
Do you really think that, the “movers and shakers” in the GOPe look upon any of those supporting Trump as “the salt of the earth” or… instead, privately stereotype them as “the great unwashed”?
Care to venture a guess as to how many of those “movers and shakers” in the GOPe view with concern any of Trump’s issues?
Personally, I’d be shocked if it was even 10%. I base that impression upon the utter paucity of the GOPe’s movers and shakers who have spoken out with urgency on any of those issues, at any point since Reagan.
I have actual “salt of the earth” roots. I still maintain a connection to those roots through growing and preserving food and hunting. I am proud of those roots and admire people “who burn the fires and still till the earth”. We were not poor, but at best I grew up in a lower middle class family. Although I was fortunate to inherit 52.4 acres of Iowa soil.
However, my siblings and I were raised to be polite, respectful of others no matter their race, religion, or class, be protective of women (my sister enjoyed hearing that advice), never covet the wealth of others, and never feel deference was due to those with more money or prestige. Trump is boorish and a buffoon. If he or hrc spontaneously combusted in front of my house I would wait 30 seconds before calling the fire department.
Geoffrey Britain:
I don’t read minds and neither do you, but I am every bit as tired of right-wing reverse snobbery assumptions as I am of the left-wing variety. I assume neither snobbery on the part of movers and shakers nor the reverse. I save accusations of “snob” for someone who has demonstrated the characteristics of one.
I don’t judge people by their money or their education, or their lack thereof.
parker,
It is the genuine courtesy that manners are supposed to convey (i.e. “raised to be polite, respectful of others no matter their race, religion, or class, be protective of women (my sister enjoyed hearing that advice), never covet the wealth of others, and never feel deference was due to those with more money or prestige”) that demonstrates whether one is civilized and educated, not book knowledge. The world is filled with ‘educated’ idiots.
Neo,
On a somewhat related note, please bear with me as I present the following rant. I am not a Trump supporter, though, like you, I would not classify myself as a NeverTrumper. I honestly don’t know what I will do on election day, and I may very well still cast my vote for him.
I get it. I really do. I get why Trump became such a phenomenon this cycle, and I get why he appealed to wide groups on the right (and yes, the left as well) Even more so, I get why many on the right have reluctantly decided to cast their vote for Trump, even if they will be holding their nose in doing so. I understand and sympathize with the reasoning behind it, because I lean in and out of that direction on a daily basis.
Having said this, I get the NeverTrump movement as well, very much so. When Trump first arrived on the scene, I scoffed. I laughed at Kevin Williamson’s article at NR when Trump announced his candidacy, titled “Witless Ape Rides the Escalator.” But like you, I realized that Trump had traction, and it alarmed me. I knew people from the get-go who supported him, and their reasoning behind it, if you could call it that, was on the basest of levels. I saw one of my longtime friends post something on FB, a meme that showed Trump’s face in front of Congress, yelling “You’re fired!” As a historian, I wanted to grab this person by the collar and shout at her, you do realize this is a classic move of a dictator, to dissolve a democratically elected legislative body? So I get the NeverTrump movement, I do think some of them are over the top and too dismissive of those who support him, but as I said I understand both sides.
This leads me to the main focus of my rant: Ace has become basically unreadable for me. This is unfortunate, as Ace (along with you and a couple of others) was a daily destination for me. I say was because I can’t stand going there anymore, it’s become an almost endless litany of rantings against the NeverTrumpers and the GOPe. As I said, I am sympathetic to most of the claims against the GOPe, even some of the NeverTrumpers, but when every single post, even those ostensibly against Hillary or some other progressive target, is laced with some jab at the NeverTrump movement or those on the right wing who are insufficiently against the left, it becomes tiresome.
More to the point, most posts are filled with the bad faith, reverse snobbery arguments you’ve mentioned above. NeverTrumpers all secretly wish Hillary to be elected, they just aren’t stating it. But we (wink, wink) know what they really mean. As evidence, Ace will post some article by Bret Stephens or Jen Rubin or somebody else who was always questionable in terms of their conservative bona fides and use that to blanket accuse the rest of the NeverTrump movement of their bad faith. At other times, I feel like I’m actually reading a transcript from some psychiatry session, as Ace will rail against the “college educated,” stating that they all, collectively, look down on those in the blue collar or lower middle class echelons as peons or subhuman, and that their own college education is some unique achievement, even though millions of Americans have some type of college education. Now, I am myself college educated, and know literally hundreds of others who are also college educated. I value my own education, but by no means do I consider myself superior to anyone else on the basis of that education alone. Not only this, I have NEVER encountered anyone, in my 46 years of existence, who has expressed this sentiment. So, Ace’s rants sound like some personal experience that he has encountered on a few occasions, and has now projected onto everyone else within the NeverTrump movement.
In a recent post by Ace, he railed agains the NeverTrumpers, and claimed that he has relentlessly tried to engage NeverTrumpers in discussions on policy. This is self-serving BS. If by “engage” he means he has shouted at and browbeaten various conservative pundits on Twitter and at his site, then blocked them or refused to substantially answer them when they’ve called him on his bullsh*t, then I guess he’s correct. He rails against them for their lack of courage, and called people like David French “whiners” because they wrote posts describing the threats and vile attacks they’ve received by Alt-Righters for their views. Yeah, David French, an Iraq War vet, who adopted an Ethiopian child, is being called a whiner by some guy who still, to this day, writes behind a fricking pseudonym.
Perhaps the most galling part of Ace’s BS is the fact that he’s adopted this tone that so many other of Trump’s more vocal supporters have, that of the Alpha Male. Ace is a formerly overweight kid, who recently began turning his life and fitness around, and frequently posts about his fitness improvements. All of which is great, and I applaud him for it. But he starts talking about the fact that he does squats as something uniquely manly, much like his rants about the college educated. He frequently calls NeverTrumpers beta males and pansies, lacking in moral and physical courage. This is pretty funny, again coming as it does from a guy who writes behind a pseudonym and who has probably never put himself on the line physically in his life. Not only this, but when someone feels the need to constantly tell you how much of a man he is (not unlike Trump) I start to question the reality behind that statement. Speaking as a former soldier, a veteran of six deployments to Iraq and one to Afghanistan, it’s particularly galling, if it wasn’t also so laughable.
It reminds me in a lot of ways of Jeff Goldstein and Protein Wisdom, another site that was a daily stop for me. Jeff’s continuous rants against the GOP in the lead-up to 2012 just wore me down, and the final straw was his defense of Todd Akin after his remarkably dim-witted gaffe. Everyone else, including people like Mark Levin, stated that Akin should step aside, but Jeff defended him and railed against everyone else. I stopped reading PW at that point, and Jeff not long after gave up posting on his own site, speaking of his own frustration with losing many readers. Oddly enough, he’s had a return lately, and posted some interesting things, until his site was corrupted by, get this, rabid Trump supporters. Yes, ironically enough, Jeff G is a NeverTrumper, and has been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty Alt-Right anti-semitic attacks and attacks on his wife and son. All because Jeff described his frustration with Trump and his supporters during the Colorado primaries.
Ace has lost many supporters and friends too. He’s burned so many bridges and blocked so many former friends that he’s basically quoting other die hard Trump supporters such as Don Surber and Dan Riehl and not many others. It’s sad, to say the least. When the election ends, no matter what the result is, I don’t see things improving any time soon, with so many feelings having been hurt and relationships effected. Not only this, if Trump loses, especially in a close result, the conditions for the “back stab” narrative have already been well-established. It’s not a rosy outlook.
Sorry for the rant, Neo. I’d love to read your thoughts on the subject if you’ve the time.
As to Trump’s wealth:
Many have increasingly felt themselves put upon, inconvenienced by the bureaucrats and DC “elite”.
cjd,
That was a spot on rant. I deleted Ace from my bookmarks 10 or 11 months ago, same goes with what was a few years ago one of my favorite blogs, Breitbart. The right side of the blogosphere is mostly a wasteland since the donald threw his YUGE! hat in the ring.
Hillary versus the Donald is more than a bit like Dracula versus the Werewolf. A time for stakes, garlic, silver bullets, and sunshine.
cjd – excellent post!
This is the only blog I actually read anymore. I don’t know how Neo does it, but this place has remained civil and she has been remarkably balanced and sane in her posts
cjd;
Yes Ace has gone off the tracks. Some of the others who post there are not quite as far gone, But Ace is mostly scroll-by since the IN primary. All the posts about his diet and such seem like so much vanity.
neo,
No I can’t read minds, nor am I in favor of judging people based upon what they have or upon their status. I reach conclusions about other people’s motivations based upon their actions and the GOPe’s actions have long spoken volumes.
Reconciling their consistent pattern of actions, over a wide range of issues with the proposition that they actually give a fig about the welfare of the country… for me stretches credulity far too much.
Clearly you are willing to continue to extend them the benefit of the doubt. You’ve expressed your reasons for doing so and while I find them valid in and of themselves, I find them overall, less than persuasive.
I do so because consistent, repeated actions reveal a pattern for which the rationale you advance does not IMO sufficiently explain.
If I am correct, only time will tell how loudly their actions must speak before you conclude otherwise. As people rarely ‘change their spots’, I predict future disappointment for you in your evident trust in the GOPe’s basic patriotism.
The GOPe’s ‘loyalty’ to a status quo that cooperates with the Left’s agenda is IMO, quite apparent.
GB,
I will not put my words in neo’s mouth. But, I think it is wise to separate the baby from the bath water before pouring the bath water down the drain. Yes, the get along to go along, and bring home the bacon politicos infest the GOP inside the beltway. They are in fact a majority, but through the grassroots ground game that can gradually change.
We differ in that you seem to see disaster is the result of the political game. I get that. It is a threat, but the real threat IMO is on the fiscal front, and there is nothing you or I can do about that except prepare as best as we are able.
BTW, it looks like djt will breach the 100 EC vote barrier. I will gladly fly down to FLA after the election (Feberuary is best for me) to buy you a case of your favorite beer. I pay my losing wagers. So I will buy the beer, but will ask for 4 days of lodging at your abode. We can make arrangements starting 11/9.
It’s been hard enough to take Trump, but the real sting of this cycle has been his supporters.
parker,
I am highly in favor of separating the baby from the bathwater. There certainly are republicans in congress that I hold in high regard. When I refer to the GOPe, I am refering to the primary leadership and, those other members who by their actions make clear their lack of support for constitutional principles and the nation’s welfare. Them and of course the donors who support them.
I regard the fiscal threat you refer to as seriously as do you and have said so since Perot. In fact, it was the sole reason I voted for Perot. Given the circumstances, I also agree that nothing can be done to avoid it.
On Nov. 9th we’ll make arrangements to settle our bet.
cjd:
Re Ace—yes, I’ve noticed that he has become somewhat of a one-note Johnny on the nefarious snobby GOPe and the NeverTrumpers (or maybe that’s 2 notes). He until recently was one of my favorite bloggers, too.
My thoughts about it, for what they’re worth (I’m doing this based on my memory of things that happened at that blog over time, and memory’s not infallible).
Ace has also been a pretty emotional guy; when he gets mad, he doesn’t hold back. But years ago he spent a lot of time arguing on his blog that the establishment wasn’t all that bad, when a lot of his readers were already getting plenty stirred up against them. This was probably around 2010 or 2011 or something like that; I don’t really recall, but it got pretty heated on his blog and a lot of his commenters fought against him and kept saying no, the establishment was just a bunch of double-talking two-timing elitist RINOs. You know the drill.
I think he even banned quite a few people around that time. Anyway, he took a lot of flak for his defense of the GOP.
Then, not too long after that, Marco Rubio (one of the guys he had liked) did the Gang of Eight thing and the proverbial excrement hit the fan. After that, Rubio was anathema to Ace. It was all-out verbal war on Rubio at Ace’s—Rubio the betrayer.
People don’t like to feel betrayed, and they don’t like to feel they’ve been made fools of. After the Rubio thing, Ace started to turn on the GOP in Congress as a whole. The kind of arguments he’d rejected earlier were now ones he embraced. But still, it wasn’t anything like an obsession.
Then this election cycle Ace started out “Trump curious,” sort of Trump friendly but not a supporter. However, he kept railing against Rubio, who was still his special bete noir. Then Ace turned on Trump (I believe it was when Trump said GW Bush lied to get us into the war).
There were a lot of pro-Trump people at Ace’s, and again, Ace took a lot of flak from them.
Then, once it was clear Trump would be the nominee, Ace fell in line and supported him. Which is understandable. But at that point he really turned with a vengeance on the GOPe and those who refused to support Trump, once it became clear that it was Trump or Hillary.
What is the point of all this? What I’m trying to say is that I think a lot of the emotion on Ace’s part comes from terrible frustration at the whole bloody mess of an election year, and his fear that Hillary will win. It feels good to blame it on someone, right? The GOPe is the obvious target, since he already had come to hate them (and to hate his former support of them). Plus, his blog has become full of Trump people, so he probably gets a lot of nodding and approval for the stance he’s taking now. But I think it’s a stance he sincerely feels, as well. I think he’s tired (he may also be hungry—dieting will do that to you). I think he senses that Trump will lose, I think he’s angry, I think he’s striking out at to him is the most obvious target.
Why did I notice all these things over there? Well, for whatever reason, I tend to really notice changes of mind, changes of heart. I think that may be why these changes at Ace’s caught my attention.
@ cjd:
Yep, identical experience here with Ace. I don’t know if he perma-banned me, but I know he deleted my posts. This, after he made an open challenge for a NeverTrumper to defend X,Y, or Z position he posted.
I told him he was erecting straw men, and that NT didn’t actually hold those views. That’s when the deleting started.
I didn’t stick around to see the rest.
He has fallen to the typical Trumpkin zerg-rush: any blogger who engages with commenters, and who is deemed worthy of a sustained attack gets hit with this psyop warfare. We’ve seen traces of it here, as commenters show up and tell us “how the site’s standards have fallen,” and “how disappointed they are” in the host.
Ace is now part of the cult. The same thing almost happened to Instapundit, but I think his recent brush with UT admins woke him up.
Matt_SE,
Who here that is reluctantly voting for Trump has failed to understand your rationale? Who here has offered harsh, unwarranted personal criticism? Hopefully it is not a case where disagreement itself is offensive?
Are you referring to comments and accusations made elsewhere?
In considering the source, why would anything an extremist alt-r advocate might say, bother you?
Matt_SE:
Please see this comment of mine.
I also would add that I believe the pressure from the Trump supporters on bloggers with very high traffic has been fierce. I’ve experienced it as well, but I’m a much smaller fish to begin with. I’ve lost about 15-20% of my regular traffic this Year of the Trump because of it, it seems. But 15-20% of my traffic is a LOT less than 15-20% (or perhaps even more) of Ace’s or Glenn’s traffic. They are two of the giants of the right side of the blogosphere.
I’m not saying they take the positions they do to retain traffic. But sometimes people respond to group pressure without even realizing it, because the pressure is a subtle and sometimes even gradual thing.
It’s been an interesting year, hasn’t it?
I take it that Ace & his commenters is the source. I’ve never frequented his blog so am unfamiliar with the general tone there. But Brietbart is much the same. Nothing to be gained with people who immediately engage in personal attacks.
and [Ace’s] fear that Hillary will win.
——————-
It’s this. Or at least, it was initially. I assume that’s still the case.
Shortly after Trump clinched the nomination, Ace made a post that basically criticized people fault-finding Trump, because doing so made Hillary look more attractive to voters. Ace really, really, really doesn’t want to see Hillary get into the White House.
Further, Ace’s site tends to attract trolls. And as has been noted both here and at other sites, the trolls are out in force this campaign season. I don’t imagine that having them floating around (and Ace’s rules typically let even trolls post for a bit before the hammer gets dropped on them) has been good for his piece of mind.
————————
That’s a laugh, history professor Gingrich as a populist.
————————
He tries. Remember that in 2012, one of the things Gingrich attacked Romney over was the latter’s knowledge of French (because Romney served a mission in France). IIRC, it was then pointed out that Gingrich had done some stuff in French as well, whereupon he claimed that it was so long ago since he’d last done anything in French that he’d forgotten the language.
Concur, Ace has been hard to read for a while now.
Cjd: I used to read Ace daily as well, for years and years. It isn’t even worth a hate read, now.
You’re right about this “alpha male” bullshit that has slithered out of the alt-right, too. Watching formerly normal middle-aged bloggers suddenly start preening about how manly they are gives me a terrible case of second-hand embarrassment.
Neo,
Excerpted from one of my comments at your April post:
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Participatory politics subsume electoral politics.
I agree with Ace insofar that NeverHillary conservatives comprehend they’re in a historically critical contest. As such, their orienting priority is to win the high-stakes (activist) game at hand.
As Ace and commenters here like Cornhead and Geoffrey Britain point out, from a competitive perspective, how we got here is secondary to the proximate here and now. The 2016 POTUS election is a binary choice: whether either candidate ought to be President doesn’t change that either Trump or Clinton will be elected President on Tuesday.
With the Left’s Gramscian march imminently threatening to advance, NeverHillary means NeverHillary.
As a former activist who competed head-on versus Left activists on the ground, I understand the basic need to adapt off-putting tactics because, simply, they’re effective and needed to compete for real.
When I played, I upset NeverTrump-type conservatives at times with my adjustments to the realities on the ground. Like Ace, I was angered by the handicap and exhausted by the extra burden induced by my own ‘teammates’ resisting, even back-stabbing me as I focused on the contest out front versus zealous capable adversaries for our ostensibly shared cause.
However, I also agree with Ace’s critics insofar that the Trump phenomenon is cancerous.
Despite my gameplay at times offending their sensibilities, there was no doubt that my activism-averse ‘teammates’ and I were basically likeminded. However, the Trump-front alt-Right is not conservative. Rather, their activists twist and exploit legitimate concerns of the GOP base in order to displace conservatives of the Right from the social political landscape and take over their space, and usurp the GOP to set up their own inimical Gramscian march.
The easy rule of thumb to comprehend the “uncouthness” of the Trump phenomenon is it’s crude adaptation of Democrats Left’s themes and activist playbook. The NeverTrump alarm is more substantive than mere class snobbery; it’s a sensible reaction to the alt-Right threat to the core values and character of the Right.
The dilemma that the 2016 POTUS election poses to NeverTrump conservatives is akin to the dilemma faced by the last Chinese nationalist President, Chiang Kai-Shek, over whether to prioritize fighting the “disease of the skin” (war with the Japanese invader) or the “disease of the blood” (Mao’s Communist activist insurgency).
Chiang, or at least his Western allies in WW2, defeated the Japanese invader. But the threat from within, the Communist activist insurgency, won social dominion over China in short order.
NeverTrump conservatives have decided that they can survive to fight the “disease of the skin” but they cannot survive further metastasis within by the Trump, alt-Right phenomenon’s “disease of the blood”.
Both sides of this internecine debate are right but more importantly, they’re both wrong. The Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right look like different paths, but they’re sides of the same dys-civic coin. Both paths circle around to the same place.
NeverHillary is wrong to accept the Trump phenomenon’s “disease of the blood”. The Trump-front alt-Right is not like I was as a counter-Left activist – distasteful in my gameplay to activism-averse conservatives but with shared core values.
The Trump-front alt-Right is exploitive, adapting the techniques by which the Left displaced liberals and usurped the Democrats, and using the Left’s playbook to normalize their own social paradigm. alt-Right values are inimical to conservatives, closer in core values to the Left than the Right.
Meanwhile, NeverTrump is wrong to accept the “disease of the skin” while not taking the essential steps needed to collectively cure and reverse conservatives’ nation-crippling aversion to activism.
They may feel potent now due to hooking onto the activist gameplay of the Democrats Left. But once the Democrats Left move on, NeverTrump conservatives will be left as impotent as ever, maybe more weak than ever before.
The “disease of the blood” and the “disease of the skin” share an etiology: conservatives’ blanket aversion to activism has rendered the Right, and by extension the GOP, vulnerable first to the Left Gramscian march and now to the Left-mimicking alt-Right usurper’s exploitation of the GOP base for their Gramscian march.
The Gordon-knot solution to the “uncouthness”, class conflict, and the rest of the dilemma posed by the intolerable binary choice is a viable 3rd option.
Simply, NeverTrump and NeverHillary conservatives must collectively engineer a social activist movement in their own right that will compete for real across the social spectrum for the necessary social dominance over all adversaries.
The binary choice itself is defeat. Until conservatives of the Right go full-on permanent activist for a viable 3rd option, they can’t hope to win the nation in the only social cultural/political game there is.
Eric – A very interesting way of analyzing the situation. To put it in your terms I believe I, and an awful lot of conservative non-alt-right pro-Trump voters, feel that the disease of the blood (the alt-right and Trump) would be less fatal in the near term and could be successfully treated afterward a successful election, and that the disease of the skin (the alt-left and Hillary) would almost certainly be fatal in the near term.
I see 5 camps in this election: alt-left, non-alt-left liberals, never-Trump conservatives, pro-Trump conservatives, and the alt-right.
It seems to me that the conservatives are split between the never-Trumpers and pro-Trumpers while the democrats have all given in to the alt-left.
I think the alt-right has very little power but has joined with the pro-Trumpers in a hope that they can commandeer the party after the election. I think that is no more a possibility than that the KKK and David Duke take over the party.
I think that if the conservative never-Trumpers joined with the conservative pro-Trumpers they could continue to marginalize the alt-right after the election very easily. But if the never-Trumpers continue and Trump loses, it will cause a permanent split in the non-alt-right conservatives.
If that happens the democrats will rule and consolidate their power to the point that a new party becomes impossible before the nation collapses into Venezuela.
So, that’s why I call on the never-Trump conservatives to join with us pro-Trump conservatives and defeat both the left and the alt-right. That’s the only way for a conservative party to survive this election.
“. . . but they’re sides of the same dys-civic coin. Both paths circle around to the same place.”
It may help to give that “place” a name, in order to avoid possible confusion, and the better to examine what is not to be aided (in joining, say, the already confused and confusing pro Trump following).
Talk to me when Trump whips his penis out like Johnson had a habit of doing and had a habit of showing how big it was… or when some intern is wiping semen off her chin saying thank you for that big cigar Mr president, in the oval office. That bar been raised by the Democrats so high Robert Pershing Wadlow could skip under it with headroom.
duh.
CLINTON WARNS ‘FAKE’ WIKIS COMING
CLINTON CAMPAIGN: If ‘whopper’ email is published by WikiLeaks in next 2 days, ‘it’s probably a fake’
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-wikileaks-jennifer-palmieri-whopper-emails-2016-11
Except that Clinton and the State uses DKIM.
[This is part of what i do professionally for 35 years on top of other things]
When Clinton or others say that they imply that the email was “spoofed”, meaning it was sent from another source dressed up to look like its legitimate. or that the email contents were modified at some point after its created.
sadly for her criminal enterprise which is not as bad as being crass… they used DKIM. and not only will i show what it is, but i will show where you can go to validate the emails yourself… And why she got snagged. its at the end of the definition
DKIM – DomainKeys Identified Mail
for dems whats not there doesnt exist… they are by definition materialists and that tends to limit your vision or assumptions.
[edited for length by n-n]
But if the never-Trumpers continue and Trump loses, it will cause a permanent split in the non-alt-right conservatives.
If that happens the democrats will rule and consolidate their power to the point that a new party becomes impossible before the nation collapses into Venezuela.
So, that’s why I call on the never-Trump conservatives to join with us pro-Trump conservatives and defeat both the left and the alt-right. That’s the only way for a conservative party to survive this election.
Notice how artfully Irv G. conceals agency here. Somehow “if never-Trumpers continue and Trump loses, it will cause a permanent split…”
What, or better who, is “it”?
The only way I can parse this sentence is that after Trump loses, pro-Trump conservatives promise to hold it against never-Trumpers and guarantee the conservative movement remains split.
A blackmail threat in other words.
Note also the implicit, and unwarranted, assumption that if Trump loses, it will be NeverTrump’s fault.
The Trump movement has always been a one-way street. It’s fine with me if Trump folks vote Trump. I understand their reasons and to some extent I sympathize. However, I see it differently and I can’t go that way. But I don’t have the right to do that in pro-Trump eyes.
If Trump loses they will hold the grudge against NeverTrump.
In the unlikely event Trump wins, I bet they hold the grudge against NeverTrump also.
cjd: Well said!
As for “uncouthness” see Roger Kimball’s latest essay highlighting the Trump disturbance in Reno, NV yesterday. Read the whole thing.
The link:
https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2016/11/06/a-few-thoughts-about-temperament/?singlepage=true
“In the unlikely event Trump wins, I bet they hold the grudge against NeverTrump also. [Huxley @ 11:47]
In my opinion this points out how emotive our voting decision has become this election cycle.
I have recently restricted my comments as we, at this site, slog endlessly in Trump after Trump posts. I made my case for my own position earlier and simply have had no more to say on the matter. I see the same arguments being raised on both sides and those same arguments being rebutted with the same arguments ad nauseum.. It’s just that the players have changed somewhat, Instead of Big Maq, Matt_SE and Huxley vs. myself, Richard Saunders, et. al, it’s now Big Maq and huxley vs. Ira and Irv Greenburg.
I came to this conclusion after my lengthy discussion with Big Maq numerous threads ago. Although my intention was stating my own position, not changing Big Maq’a mind, no argument was ever sound enough to justify a Trump vote, all were dismissed as somehow wanting.
The bottom line here is that those who argue most vociferously for their own position on either side have already made up their mind and have no intention of changing it, for to do so would be to say “I was wrong.” This most especially true when decisions are emotionally based, rather than intellectually reasoned and Lord knows, we have all been driven in that direction during this cycle.
I make one personal observation here which I have actually mentioned in a previous thread. I truly believe that this presidential election has created a Beckett-like opportunity for the next president to live up to the status of the office. If Trump wins, I think recent events show that he might well take advantage of that. What events? How about the following list of just 3(from my perspective):
If Trump were to deliver on only these three items, I would be a happy camper, but if he did so, I expect there would be even more.
As to Hillary, she can not take advantage of that Becket-like opportunity. Why? Because her history has shown us that she cannot. Instead of using her public position in the service of the greater good (although that is her claim) she has carried her trashy baggage and faulty ideology from one office to the other allowing that baggage to diminish and demean the office she holds. She will do so right into the oval office.
Artfldgr:
You misunderstood the entire point of the post.
To clarify even further:
(1) The idea that people on the right are against Trump solely or even primarily because of his “uncouthness” is a misrepresentation by Trump supporters. Trump’s “uncouthness” is a minor or irrelevant point to those on the right who are against him.
(2) In any event, even if “uncouthness” were the issue (it is not), comparisons to what Johnson or Clinton did in private are irrelevant. In public, Johnson was the soul of couth except on 2 occasions which were relatively minor: one was when he picked up his beagle by the ears and another when he showed his appendectomy scar. That was pretty much it. And Bill Clinton was completely well-behaved in public, too. In fact, with LBJ, the public didn’t even know about his private persona till much much later, after his political career was over.
(3) No one here is ignoring any of the huge flaws of Hillary Clinton.
“Trump’s “uncouthness” is a minor or irrelevant point to those on the right who are against him.”- Neo
Do you have any evidence of this assertion?
Huxley – I did not mean that ‘the republican party will split’ as a threat. What I was trying to do was predict people’s future actions. I have said nothing about what I would do because I don’t have enough information to start making decisions that far in the future. I’ll decide that then.
If the election is a blowout in either direction then all bets are off. In that case, either way, I can see a path for the party to reorganize and survive.
I don’t see that survival mattering much if the democrats win in a blowout. We will become effectively a one-party country because of their ability to open the border to get new democrat voters, and their control of the supreme court will prevent any effective oversight from congress.
But if Trump loses in a close election and it appears the never-Trump vote was decisive then a split is inevitable. A very large part of the party (last poll I saw said 65%) has felt betrayed by the moderate establishment republicans for too long for them to ever recover. Ryan has already said he doesn’t know if he’ll stay on as Speaker.
After the split the pro-Trump folks will probably fight with the alt-right for control of what’s left of the party.
In any event, I don’t see any significant support developing for the moderate establishment republicans. Perhaps a new party will start up called the Constitution Party or the Liberty Party or some such name. I have no predictions that far in the future.
Neo,
I don’t read a lot of specifically anti-Trump blogs or virulently pro-Trump blogs either, for that matter, but when the Bush tape came out, Trumps support dropped significantly, so it must have mattered to a lot of people.
But if Trump loses in a close election and it appears the never-Trump vote was decisive then a split is inevitable.
Irv G: Again you are concealing agency. If the GOP splits, it will be because pro-Trump holds the grudge against NeverTrump, not the other way around.
I believe pro-Trump will do so no matter how the election falls out.
huxley, Irv Greenberg:
The spllit has already occurred. Trump is a symptom of it, not a cause—although his candidacy has furthered widened it.
If Trump loses, his supporters will blame those on the right who didn’t support him (the ones they are blaming anyway, the ones they were trying to stick it to by nominating him in the first place). They will blame them even if he wins—blame them for not supporting him more, not getting with the program. And they will punish them if they can.
Brian E:
The evidence is everywhere.
You say you don’t read many alt-right blogs. My question is whether you read many posts of mine that have explained what I object to in Trump (not that I’m a NeverTrumper; I’m not, but I’m certainly not a supporter), or whether you’ve read many articles by pundits and politicians on the right who are against Trump.
I certainly have. They list innumerable reasons they are against him, but chief among them are (a) he lies, so they don’t trust him (b) he falsely accuses good people on the right (c) he has a history of being a con man (d) he does not believe in the principles he espouses (e) he has a liberal Democrat history (f) he supported Hillary for years (g) he is a loose cannon, emotionally, who is likely to do irrational things, particularly in the foreign arena (h) he is ignorant and uncurious, particularly about foreign affairs, and has shown no propensity to want to learn (for example, his “nuclear triad” remarks, which were repeated) (i) his economic policies about trade (j) for some on the right, there was an objection to his announcement that he wanted to ban Muslims as a whole (k) he adopted the leftist playbook with his “Bush lied” accusations (l) he is supported by the alt-right, a portion of which is dangerously bigoted, and would be empowered by his election (m) he is also a bad candidate who is likely to lose, in a year when Republicans were poised to win and almost any other nominee would have had a better chance of defeating Hillary.
“He is uncouth” was very low on the list for most, and usually brought up mainly in terms of how it affected point (m) above. In other words, his “uncouthness”—and his possible sexually harassing actions towards women, as reflected in his “grab pussy” remarks combined with the accusations of various women—was of interest mostly because it negatively affected his chances of being elected and of defeating Hillary.
These points were made over and over on this blog and by the vast majority of NeverTrump pundits and politicians. And yet the meme keeps coming that they are merely upset by Trump’s uncouthness, and that they are just snobs who can’t take a little straight talk.
There may be someone, somewhere, who is primarily upset by Trump’s uncouthness. I haven’t seen it.
There may be someone, somewhere, who is primarily upset by Trump’s uncouthness. I haven’t seen it.
Yes, that’s a self-serving accusation from the Trump side, not a reality. It’s not that simple.
Apparently I’ve lost a friend I’ve known since 1978 over Trump. He said I was put off because Trump was “too hard-core,” too Noo Yawk for my tender sensibilities, but he could get Trump because he grew up one state over.
My friend did come from a classic working-class, immigrant family. By the usual virtues he managed to raise himself up to a college degree and eventually owning a three-decker in Boston. Good for him.
I came from a privileged background, or what should have been privileged, except my family was so crazy that I dropped out of college, ended up homeless at times, doing the usual crap jobs — which my friend never did — washing dishes, bussing tables, carrying rebar at construction sites, picking beans in the fields, various crummy factory jobs breathing fumes I don’t want to think about today, and the worst of all, chicken farm work.
There is a class element to this discussion but I am not sympathetic. It’s not that simple.
““establishment” being a leftist word”
There is a little more to it though. The Goldwater / Reagan conservatives have long seen a eastern republican establishment as opposing them from within the party. Its not all trump supporters. But the trump supporters have expanded it to just about anyone but themselves.
My favorite encounter with a Dumb Trumpkin was when I posted some objections to the kind of populism we see in the Trump movement, especially the kind exhibited by the less educated Trump followers. I identified myself clearly as a libertarian and gave some of my libertarian background. Immediately (as if this guy spends all his time on a computer, just waiting . . .) some Trumpkin writes back, not refuting anything I wrote–the post was more descriptive and autobiographical than argumentative–but categorizing me, absurdly, as a “leftist.” I’m not even sure he knew what a “leftist” is. It was like he’d just learned the word and was now going to use it to put down anyone who seemed to disparage his hero. I asked him what made me a leftist, and all he could do was re-assert his claim. Like other Trumpkins I’ve encountered online, he objected to what he saw as my fancy-pants vocabulary and the fact that I write in complete sentences. He reminded me of the typical Dumb Guy, saying in effect the classic Dumb Guyisms; “You think you’re better’n me?!” and “You talk like a fag.”
Neo,
Yes, I’d forgotten to mention the whole thing of Ace wrt Rubio. Look, I was as cheesed-off as most people on the right were with Rubio’s Gang of Eight debacle, but overall I wasn’t necessarily surprised. At the end of the day politicians gotta politic, any expectation that even the most upright of them won’t do something that goes against at least one of your principles during a campaign, or once elected, during their tenure, is silly. I don’t get invested in any politician and I don’t worship them as saviors, because inevitably you will be disappointed.
Having said all that, Ace became positively unhinged about Rubio, he went so far as to say that if Rubio became the nominee, he would vote for Hillary. He said this multiple times, and it should have been a millstone around the neck of his blogging career from then on. When he started his more recent rants agains the NT and GOPe, he was frequently called out for these statements. He tried to wave them away in some lame fashion, and when this didn’t work, he simply blocked or banned people. More recently he has stated openly that if Trump loses he will simply call himself a Democrat in order to save face and avoid public ridicule. And NOBODY over there calls him on it, what a moral coward.
Anyway, I’ve ranted enough about it. And thanks for your thoughts, and thanks for the thoughts of everyone else, including the more Trump-inclined commenters such as GB, Irv, and Blert. I like reading the stuff you guys write and you always explain your positions thoroughly; this is the way discussions between people who disagree should be. Unfortunately there’s too little of it this cycle. SMOD 2016 seems more the way to go!
cjd:
Yes, Ace was extremely extreme in his denunciations of Rubio.
I have to wonder, in my heart of hearts (and here I might take the speculation a little too far), whether part of Ace’s ire is angst at his own possible role in the turning of the base on the right against Rubio—Rubio being a candidate who would have almost certainly beaten Hillary. I think that when Ace was railing against the possible nomination of Rubio, he was fearful of having to possibly face the terrible terrible choice (in his opinion, anyway) of Rubio vs. Hillary. His saying he would choose Hillary was partly extreme anger and a desire to punish Rubio for what he sees as Rubio’s betrayal, and partly a way to say “don’t nominate Rubio whatever you do, don’t present me with that terrible dillema!” And, since Ace is a smart man, he has to look at Trump’s longshot chances, and the likelihood of a Hillary win, as the result in part of people who turned on Rubio and made it impossible for him to be nominated.
Not that Ace has all that much influence. But he has a not-insignificant amount, probably on the order of 50 times the influence I have. He probably has 50 times the traffic I have, anyway, or at least I think he used to. And every one of his readers talks to other people, too.
The “I’m going to become a Democrat” thing is part of the anger, too, and I have a possible interpretation (right or wrong) for that, too. As a changer, I think I know a bit what it’s like for changers. Ace is a changer. He’s anonymous, but I bet he’s paid a price for being on the right; I doubt he hides it in his personal life, and among his friends. When you change and cast your lot with the other side, you don’t want to find out too much about your new side’s considerable feet of clay, and about its terrible and near-constant propensity to shoot itself in those feet of clay.
This election cycle the GOP has been in that circular firing squad mode. It has metaphorically committed suicide, in all probability handed the election over on a silver platter to Hillary Clinton by allowing the nomination of Trump (a man who was not Ace’s choice, either). It makes for a lot of anger. Ace may be saying his own version of “I’m sick of being on this losing team, FU to the lot of you.”
“My favorite encounter with a Dumb Trumpkin . . . he objected to what he saw as my fancy-pants vocabulary and the fact that I write in complete sentences.” [Bilwick @ 4:31]
Nothing warms my heart more that a story that rationalizes one own self-assessed superiority.
How is this fit uncouth fascistic behavior??
Project Veritas Action caught senior Democrat consultants Robert Creamer and Scott Foval acknowledging using dirty, likely illegal tricks against the Trump campaign. Both have since resigned from the DNC, a move some consider to be an admission of guilt. Their goal was to generate negative media coverage of Trump rallies by fomenting violence at them. The media eagerly used the various altercations Democrats created to attempt to discredit Trump by depicting his supporters as violent, knuckle-dragging crazies.
Foval said on camera his agents “infiltrate” Trump events. “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf**ker.” He adds, “we’re starting anarchy here.”
In one video Creamer says Hillary Clinton personally knows about the false flag operation. Her campaign “is fully in it,” he says. “Hillary knows through the chain of command what’s going on.” Previously convicted of felony bank fraud, Creamer has close personal ties to President Obama and has visited the Obama White House 342 times including 47 meetings with Obama personally.
One of the visits even took place in Obama’s personal living quarters. “It’s a very big deal that Creamer visited the president’s residence in the White House,” a former senior White House employee told this writer. “White House employees can work there for years and never visit the residence.”
T:
I’m curious.
Let’s say that “Bilwick” is describing what this person said to him/her. Let’s say the person said “Bilwick, I think you’re full of it and I think you look down on me because I see that you have a good vocabulary and you write in grammatically correct sentences. That means you’re an elitist snob.”
Let’s say that was the message from this person, and that Bilwick is merely describing what the person actually indicated was the problem with Bilwick.
Would you still call it “a story that rationalizes one own self-assessed superiority”? Is it a “story” only, a rationalization for some pre-conceived notion? Or would it just be the descriptive truth of what occurred?
Now, I don’t know what this person actually said when in the conversation with Bilwick. I make no assumptions either way. But why do you make the anti-Bilwick assumption you seem to be making?
The pro Trump camp consists of four distinct groups, IMO.
The alt right consists of a small, but vocal group of extreme right wingers who are nationalists, racist to some extent, and impatient with the give and take of normal government functions. They are for smaller, less intrusive government; isolationism; free trade; and in many ways are very aggressive Libertarians. They are against multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and, above all, political correctness. Most are young white men who often say outrageous things. Most are aggressive toward anyone who seems to stand in their way. We don’t know how many of them there are. I would be surprised if they number more than a million. But, because they are so visible and vocal they are influential beyond their numbers.
The largest Trump support comes from blue collar workers. These people are mostly not college educated and have been losing economic ground for the last twenty or more years. They don’t know exactly why their jobs pay less and their standard of living has decreased so much, but they sense that the government’s policies have had a lot to do with it. Trump’s message has attracted them like Jesus’ sermons attracted followers. He does not sound like the polished but unproductive politicians they’ve been used to. Plus he claims not to be beholden to anyone because he’s rich. They like that. They don’t know or care much about his past political stances or his business dealings. He’s succeeded – that’s enough for them. This group is the largest number of voters and represents a lot of former Democrat voters and people who didn’t vote at all in past elections because they didn’t see anyone who they thought represented them.
Another group that is attracted to him is small business people. They know how hard it is to succeed in business. They know how much government regulations have stood in the way of growing their businesses or of staying even. They may not agree with everything he says, but his message sounds like it’s pro-business and they refuse to vote for Hillary and her anti-business policies.
The last group for Trump is the one I’m in. It consists of college educated Republicans and conservatives who didn’t support Trump in the primaries, don’t like Trump’s style, are aware of his objectionable personal proclivities, and are not certain he can be trusted to do what he advertises in the campaign. Our votes are not so much pro-Trump votes as they are anti-Hillary votes. The near certainty that her corruptness, progressive programs/policies, and mendaciousness will lead to a further march toward Liberal Fascism is much greater motivation for us to vote against her than any possible damage Trump might do.
I think there is a chance that the college educated Republicans who are NeverTrumpers, MaybeTrumpers, and ProTrumpers could reunite after the election, especially if Hillary wins. Once the election is over, there will be a need to stand against the tide of Hillary and her policies. Blaming one another for the results will be a waste of time and energy.
If Hillary wins, the alt-right will ally with the Libertarians, who agree with their ideas more than traditional Republicans. I don’t think they would be able to reshape the Republican Party into a much bigger Libertarian Party, but they may try.
We live in interesting times.
T – your missing the point. The one with the self-assessed superiority was the Trump supporter.
>”The bottom line here is that those who argue most vociferously for their own position on either side have already made up their mind and have no intention of changing it, for to do so would be to say “I was wrong.”” – T
Pot, meet my black kettle.
.
T, not sure you were going to change your mind, either, and, of course, it looks like you haven’t.
I certainly wanted to be convinced, and for some months was open to it, but more of what came from trump himself, the more he reinforced my concerns.
Being of minority opinion here, our voices may come across as “vociferous” because, we are few.
.
I really didn’t think I could convince you, but I do think I can provide a counter point to your and several of your compatriot’s views, because most of those arguments are, indeed, “wanting”…
Those arguments rest enormously on a “Flight 93” or similar hyperbolic “last chance” case, taken as somehow self evident, and inordinately on all the ills with clinton herself. I do think clinton is awful, that it is the wrong direction, more towards Europe, but I also think elections and opportunity to change minds will still exist through 2020 and beyond. This is not our last chance.
Those arguments rest on assumptions about what trump will do, but do not answer why one particular version or interpretation of what he says should be believed over the others he’s said – to say nothing about how his past support for dems and dem policy no longer informs his inner core of ideas.
Those arguments rest on the assumption that trump knows what is to be done and is capable of delivering – he hasn’t delivered on the simplest of things he could have during the campaign (e.g. “being presidential”), nor made focused inroads to the constituencies he needs to win, nor be able to articulate in convincing detail the whys and hows of any policy.
Those arguments rest on the assumption that whatever one THINKS trump will do, even if it were believable, is necessarily something I should agree with as a conservative, or that I think it good for the country.
Those arguments rest on the assumption that trump carries little risk himself – see Neo’s list above, and add that he has shown a tendency to react sharply on the smallest of slights. Those, and the above assumptions, all add up to enormous potential downside risk, not easily “assumed” away.
Those arguments rest on the assumption that Congress, SCOTUS, the MSM, and principled people will all be a sufficient barrier to any wrong doing that trump may undertake, yet, leaves unaddressed how those all were ineffective up in preventing trump winning the candidacy, nor how difficult it really would be. He gives us every indication that he may well end up using executive powers even MORE aggressively than clinton – that would be a far worse outcome, IMHO, come 2020.
.
So, we can lament that the other really wasn’t open to changing their mind, but at least the counter points got airing and others who read it might scratch their head and hesitate a little bit before they adopt one of several assumptions to conclude trump is the “obvious” choice, or even a “good” choice.
If the few of us didn’t take up the keyboard, what would this blog be other than yet another place to confirm your thoughts and beliefs.
.
I will be perfectly willing to emphatically say “I was wrong”, if trump were to win and all the doubts / concerns / questions I list above prove to be so very wrong.
J.J.:
I think your comment is a good summary, but there are a couple of things I really disagree with.
You write that the alt-right “are for smaller, less intrusive government” and are “aggressive libertarians.” I don’t see that at all. I think they are for a powerful, almost dictatorial executive, if that person backs what they want. In addition, I don’t think they have a libertarian bone in their bodies.
One more thing. There is another group of Trump supporters in addition to those you mentioned. I’d say there’s a group of college-educated people on the right who are so fed up with the impotence of the GOP during the Obama years, and its relative liberalism domestically during the Bush administration, that they value Trump as a way to tell that group how fed up they are. They also sincerely believed that Trump would win enough working class people and/or Democrat crossovers that he could win.
I think they were wrong in that last estimate. I suppose we’ll see on Tuesday.
“Blaming one another for the results will be a waste of time and energy.”
I agree, but it won’t surprise me if this is what the GOP devolves to, if Trump loses.
Man, we need real leaders . . .
“Ace may be saying his own version of ‘I’m sick of being on this losing team, . . . ‘” [Neo @ 5″34]
If I may, Neo, IMO it’s not that principled conservatives are tired of being on the losing team, it’s that we’re tired of being on a team that consistently plays to lose. They do so by not sticking to the principles they espouse to get elected (thereby failing to accumulate a loyal electorate), by not taking the fight to the left rather insisting as Romney did to remain above the fray, by allowing themselves to be “Alinsky-ed” by the left one national election cycle after another learning absolutely nothing from it.
So where do we wind up? A great message (“Make America Great Again!”), delivered by a faulty messenger because the Republican party did much damage to its own self by looking like the left in its derogation of the Tea Party, a by-the-books movement to attempt internal change. I used to be a registered Republican. At this juncture, don’t ever see that happening again in my lifetime.
And like it or not this faulty messenger fights–and he continues to fight. Say what one will about shooting himself in the foot or unnecessarily providing the enemy with ammunition, he fights, and the run up to this election has proven that to be true.
Some time ago, one commenter here (I don’t remember exactly who) noted yeah he fights, but there is a big difference between a boxing match and flailing indiscriminately. That’s certainly true there is a big difference, but when one is surrounded by opponents as Trump is (the Left, The MSM, Establishment Republicans, #NeverTrump conservatives) flailing indiscriminately works because one always hits something with every indiscriminate blow that one throws.
I came to support Trump reluctantly, I have repeatedly written that. If elected, he may thoroughly disappoint me. That’s a chance I’m willing to take. Having said that, he has earned my respect by not caving after repeated attempts by numerous sources to relegate his campaign to the dustbin of history.
And like it or not this faulty messenger fights—and he continues to fight. Say what one will about shooting himself in the foot or unnecessarily providing the enemy with ammunition, he fights, and the run up to this election has proven that to be true.
That’s the problem. You’re right in that Trump defied all predictions to get to this point, and he may even win.
But this “he fights” stuff… a soldier who shoots himself AND his fellow soldiers AND provides the enemy with tons of ammunition is not a good soldier (in fact, if that was a good analogy would be considered a traitor) – that soldier isn’t going to win any war.
He spends far too much time attacking people on his own side. Word has it he’s already figuring out how to pay back his enemies after the election. He said after the convention that he didn’t really see a need to unify the Republican party – figured he’d win without the never Trumpers.
Who knows? Maybe he was right. But on paper it would be a first time/never before seen miracle. You can’t win an election alienating:
– Women
– The young
– Minorities
– A significant % of your own party
You also don’t win if you don’t have a strong GOTV apparatus, strong fundraising, good strategic advertising, etc.
If he wins, it’s going to be, well, amazing (I don’t mean that in a good way, but you already know where I stand on Trump)
Neo and Bill,
Make no mistake about it, when one begins a comment by disparaging the adversary (not a Trumpkin, but a dumb Trumpkin, calling that his/her favorite story and feel the need to explain that s/he, himself, speaks and writes in complete sentences, this is not simply relating a story, this is not simply calling attention to the fact that certain Trump supporters are uneducated (or better, unrefined), this is wallowing in one’s feeling of self-appointed cultural superiority. Think of how many other ways this story could have been told to achieve the same effect. You would not have told the story this way.
Now I may be somewhat more sensitive to this than others because I live in a blue-collar neighborhood. I deal with people of limited education on a daily basis and while there are always some “rotten apples” these are good honest hard-working Americans, many of whom I count as friends. I, for one will not allow them to go undefended when I think they are being savaged by the same kind of self-righteous, condescending, sanctimony on the right that I refuse to tolereate from those on the left. I called Vanderleun on his statement about Big Maq for exactly the same reason.
T,
Fair enough.
“Being of minority opinion here, our voices may come across as “vociferous” because, we are few.” ]Big Maq @ 5:54]
Big Maq,
Actually I wasn’t really targeting most commenters here because the discussions, although not leading to resolution, have not been vociferous (i.e., loud, demanding, etc.). I was speaking in general terms about individuals on both sides, and the fact that such “yelling and screaming” so to speak has taken over a good portion of the national dialogue (again not at this site) refers back to my earlier comment about having been led to make emotional decisions.
As for you and I and Huxley and the rest, I think you’re wrong, but I respect your position. You think I am wrong and, hopefully, you respect mine (from your many comments I believe that to be true). We will go to the voting booths each with our own disparate points of view. I say seriously, Is this a great country or what?
Anyway, I’ve ranted enough about it.
cjd: Please continue to write and participate.
I suggest pacing yourself. You don’t have to say everything in one fell swoop.
Agreed, but sometimes I’ve got so many thoughts swirling about I’ve got to get rid of it. But your point is well taken!
cjd: As the American Bard, i.e. Bob Dylan, said in “Highway 61 Revisited”:
I need a dump truck, baby, to unload my head.
Me too.
I’m grateful to neo in this blog for doing the tedious spadework on all the Trump contradictions and craziness.
T:
Bilwick didn’t say “all Trump supporters are dumb” or even “most Trump supporters are dumb.” He said that this person was a “dumb Trumpkin.” Maybe this particular person WAS a Trump supporter who is in fact dumb, saying dumb things.
And I don’t see anything wrong with saying it’s a “favorite” story—I took “favorite” to be a sarcastic remark. And “dumb Trumpkin” as an overly-cute attempt at a sort of rhyme.
You know, some people who support Trump are dumb and say dumb things. Some people who don’t support him are dumb and say dumb things. The key is whether the person being called dumb has actually done or said a dumb thing. For all you and I know, the person Bilwick is describing actually was a dumb Trump supporter.
If you’re objecting to Bilwick’s tone—well no, I wouldn’t have told the story in the same way. But I tend to be unusually cautious and polite and tactful, even online (although not always).
You write that Bilwick felt “the need to explain that s/he, himself, speaks and writes in complete sentences” and say “this is not simply relating a story, this is not simply calling attention to the fact that certain Trump supporters are uneducated (or better, unrefined), this is wallowing in one’s feeling of self-appointed cultural superiority.” Wow, that’s unpacking an awful lot into what Bilwick actually wrote.
Take a look at what Bilwick actually wrote: “he objected to what he saw as my fancy-pants vocabulary and the fact that I write in complete sentences.” Read that carefully. Unless you think Bilwick is making up what the “dumb Trumpkin” said, what Bilwick is doing is reporting what another person said. Bilwick is saying that the Trump-supporter he’s telling the story about had been the one to accuse him of having a fancy-pants vocabulary and writing in complete sentences, and that those facts were objectionable in some way.
Now, it’s possible that Bilwick’s accuser didn’t really say that. Lots of things are possible. But unless you are automatically assuming that Bilwick is misrepresenting what this person said, why would you insist that Bilwick is “wallowing in feelings of self-appointed cultural superiority”? That’s quite an assumption, there, from just a few words.
If someone here says I don’t support Trump because I’m an elitist snob, and the evidence of my elitist snobbism is that I use big words, would my telling that story prove me to be “wallowing in feelings of self-appointed cultural superiority”? No.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re making assumptions based on way way too little evidence.
Big Maq,
Here I go again. I said above that I pretty much said what I have to say, yet you post above is so cogent I think it deserves a response. The caveat first, however, is that we are discussing our opinions. We both know that, but I think it needs to be continually stated in this rather charged national election.
First you refer to a “Flight 93” scenario. I have stated that we may be at that cusp. I don’t know this to be true, in fact I’m making that observation with only the most shallow information. It’s just that I don’t want to take that chance because if it is true, then the Republic is lost. If it is not true, I don’t see a Trump presidency as having the same lasting effect if he really does screw up. And if he’s successful, all the better for all of us on the right.
“Those arguments rest on assumptions about what trump will do, but do not answer why one particular version or interpretation of what he says should be believed over the others he’s said — to say nothing about how his past support for dems and dem policy no longer informs his inner core of ideas.”
That those arguments rest on assumptions is true, but even the belief that Trump will remain as mendacious and mercurial as he is reputed to have been are assumptions. They are all we, you and I, have. As I see it, Trump’s campaign rhetoric is exactly that. He gave us an insight when Hugh Hewitt cornered him on his language about Obama and Clinton founding ISIS. Hewitt said he understood the meaning, but he wouldn’t have said it that way; Trump’s response was that they were talking about the way he said it. More importantly, he cited severak additional times his intent to choose SCOTUS from his advertised list of judges. The he has repeated that gives it some credibility to me, but it could jsu tbe campaign rhetoric. This is one way in which he would disappoint me greatly, were he not to live up to that repeated intent.
As for supporting Dems in the past, Trump again gave us an insight. When asked how he knows the system is rigged, his response was “Because I’ve taken advantage of it!” Can’t ask for a more truthful response that that. He contributed to Dems because as a New York real estate financier, that was the seat of power (New York city—deep blue). Now one might want to say well that’s because Dems are buyable and Republicans are not, but any who believes that is still waiting for their next phone call regarding Nigerian oil. IMO this reveals Trump as a greater pragmatist than people give him credit for being. Give me a system, any system, and I’ll figure out how to make it work to my advantage. If the system’s corrupt, I’ll pay grease the wheels and pay the vig.
I see Trump as a figure not unlike George S. Patton in WW II. Men either loved him or hated him. He was the greatest field commander in the European Theater and arguably one of the greatest field commanders in history. He rolled over the German army most times he had an army, and yet, he used former Nazis in the aftermath of the war to help keep the civil organization going. He was criticized for doing so and responded the these people knew what they were doing–when sent appropriate people who could do the job he would replace the former with the latter.
I see Trump in much this same light. First win the war–to break Clinton’s Siegfried line (i.e., the MSM) is to deny Clinton victory. That even the MSM has now walked back this great Clinton electoral onslaught (at least in the popular vote) mean that such a strategy has been successful. Successful enough? We’ll know late Tuesday night.
Again, you’re right. We’re all working on assumptions here, no matter how fundamental we think our research has been. And I freely admit that backing Trump, reluctantly or not, I could be quite disappointed. I won’t be if my assumptions are correct, but then again, they are just assumptions.
For my part, though, I see it as worth taking the chance on Trump rather than taking the chance that our Republic is not at a tipping point with Hillary. Your results may vary.
T:
Trump not only gave money to Hillary et al, he praised her tremendously. He praised Pelosi and lots of other liberal Democrats. Plus, he espoused many many liberal positions. In addition, he didn’t have to give them money in order to be a real estate developer. Plenty of business people on the right don’t do so, and they do just fine in business.
His excuses are just self-serving excuses.
T:
I agree with some of that “consistently plays to lose” accusation towards the GOP. That’s why I used the phrase “shooting themselves in the foot.”
However—and this is key—a lot of these accusations are exaggerated, unrealistic assumptions about what was possible and what the consequences would have been. I’ve written many many posts on that subject, and I don’t have time to go into it all over again now. But it’s an overreaction, a myth that a lot of people on the right tell themselves because they are disappointed in not getting exactly what they wanted from the GOP.
And it’s been a destructive myth.
Another myth is that Romney didn’t fight. No, he wasn’t a mean SOB when he fought, but he fought plenty. I’ve written about that, too.
So much of Trump’s support has been based on myths that angry, dissatisfied, frustrated people on the right are telling themselves and have been telling themselves for years, fanned by the flames of talk show hosts, bloggers, other blog commenters, and various pundits.
“I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re making assumptions based on way way too little evidence.” [Neo @7:04]
Of course I may be wrong. Still, I’ve seen this kind of behavior before. In the community work that I do, I represent these people and listen, very frequently, to such snide verbal remarks which just drip of sanctimony. It’s as if certain people in positions of authority somehow feel unclean by simply acknowledging these “Yahoos” presence. I myself have been on the receiving end of this from doctors and nurses, and I refuse to accept it from them either. It’s amazing to watch their tone and comportment physically change when they suddenly find out I have advanced degrees. The point is that those, like speaking in fluent sentences, shouldn’t matter.
So, in my own defense, I’ve seen it, I’ve heard it and I still refuse to accept it. If I am wrong here, let Bilwick post a cogent rebuttal for me to consider. So far, as with my previous set-to, I see none.
T:
“Bilwick” is not a frequent commenter here, so his/her lack of response has no particular meaning.
I’m taking up the cause not because I know much about what Bilwick actually meant. I don’t. But I think it’s best not to read so much into it from other experiences in your life.
Once a person becomes sensitized to a certain sort of insult, the danger is to start perceiving it where it doesn’t exist and is not meant.
This must be the only blog or site left where it is possible to read through 61, sometimes long, comments without pulling your hair out.
I’ll make a few brief points: I can’t stand hearing the term college educated. Many who are identified that way are in fact college credentialled but poorly educated, that would apply to many of the millenials Hillary is appealing to. Think of all the snowflakes out there.
Many of the Trumpster consevatives don’t seem to get the idea that sometimes compromise is necessary or at least that you should listen to others to see if you have missed something in forming your own opinion.
As Neo as often said, “A mind is a terrible thing to change.” Sometimes it may be more effective to share personal experiences that challenge the conventional wisdom and may sow a bit of cognitive dissonance rather than try to beat the other side with a hammer. Conservatives probably need a forum where experiences can be shared.
“. . . he didn’t have to give them money in order to be a real estate developer. Plenty of business people on the right don’t do so, and they do just fine in business.” [Neo @ 7:09]
“We’re all working on assumptions here, no matter how fundamental we think our research has been” [T to Big Maq @ 7:05]
T:
No, not an assumption.
I don’t have time to find it now, but I once read an article that pointed out how many real estate developers don’t do what Trump did vis a vis political contributions to people on the opposite side from what they believe, politically. They still are rich and successful.
Did Trump’s contributions help him become richer? Probably. But he could have been rich and successful without them, and especially without all the fulsome apple-polishing praise in which he engaged.
Plus, as I pointed out, his stated political beliefs were often in line with theirs, not against them. So his excuses are merely excuses
In addition, even if Trump hated Clinton rather than truly agreeing with her and being sincere in his oft-stated admiration, and gave her money merely in order to amass ever more money for himself, and admitted it, that’s no recommendation for Trump. Au contraire. So, Trump is an amoral and self-interested whore in terms of what he will do to earn a buck, and admits it—so what?
After I wrote yesterday’s post criticizing the idea that it is Trump’s “uncouthness” that constitutes the major objection of Trump opponents to electing Trump as president
I can’t speak for all Trump opponents, but my friend and neighbor, an 80 year old small businessperson who owns several rental properties – all paid for- has told me that Trump “has no class.” Which is pretty much “uncouth.”
As I see it, the main objection to Trump’s “uncouthness” is that unlike previous Republican candidates, he attacks when attacked. Democrat operatives in the press corps are not accustomed to pushback, for example.
“You write that the alt-right “are for smaller, less intrusive government” and are “aggressive libertarians.” I don’t see that at all. I think they are for a powerful, almost dictatorial executive, if that person backs what they want. In addition, I don’t think they have a libertarian bone in their bodies.” – Neo
Agree. In fact, heard some trump supporters say things very similar to this article…
“The wealth that results from private enterprise is very much a social construct. … If, as the authors of American Amnesia point out, you crack open that smartphone, you’ll find that every component is the product of research that the US government either funded or carried out directly: lithium-ion batteries, GPS, cellular technology, touch-screen and LCDs, internet connectivity, algorithmic applications.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/05/the-big-con-what-is-really-at-stake-on-election-day
As if these goods could have come about independently of a robust marketplace where such foundational expertise had been developed in the first place.
I hardly think those folks are libertarian at all.
Gringo:
I have little doubt there are isolated individuals who feel that way.
But the VDH article I was criticizing was not about those people. It was about NeverTrumpers as a whole, and in particular about the politicians and pundits who are NeverTrumpers.
And I would add that Newt Gingrich most definitely fought back. In fact, he was known for it. But I never ever heard anyone refer to him as “uncouth,” or say the objections to him were class objections.
If someone is actually objecting to Trump being “uncouth,” they probably are not objecting to his fighting spirit. “Uncouth” is not usually a screen word for “fighting back.” They are probably objecting to things like Trump bragging about the size of his penis during one of the GOP debates.
One more thing—about your neighbor. It would be interesting to discover what he means when he says Trump has no class. He might mean something a lot more meaningful and deeper than being uncouth.
Neo,
I have a great deal of respect for you and , in fact, throughout my history of commentary on your blog, we have agreed on most things. On this, we clearly do not.
“. . . I once read an article . . . .”
A secondary source. Perhaps accurate, perhaps not, but a secondary source none the less.
“Did Trump’s contributions help him become a bit richer? Probably. But he could have been plenty rich and successful without them, and especially without all the fulsome apple-polishing praise in which he engaged.”
“Probably,” “. . . could have been . . ,” Assumptive,
“Plus, as I pointed out, his stated political beliefs were often in line with theirs, not against them.”
Do you know this for a fact or is it more accurate to say “his stated political beliefs seem to be often in line . . .?” You do not know what kind of game he was playing of if any game was being played at all. Perhaps true, perhaps not, but either way, assumptive.
As you caution me for assuming what is in Bilwick’s mind, you seem absolute in your knowledge of what is in Trump’s mind. This refers directly back to my earlier comment today about how emotionally based this election has become and how it has driven all of us, I think without exception, to make and defend emotional decisions first and rationalize them afterwards.
We each will cast our vote without any guarantee that it represents the “correct” path in a high stakes game, without any guarantee that we will not be disappointed, and (with the exception that we all think of Hillary Clinton as execrable) certainly without any guarantee that we have chosen wisely after all.
I think this this is what gnaws at all of usl. Thank God it’s almost over.
T:
I wrote “his STATED political beliefs” because that’s exactly what I meant.
The beliefs that Trump stated. Over and over, many times, in his own words, lots of liberal beliefs about a number of things, over a period of years.
I don’t read his mind. Nor did I say I know what was in his mind, or made an assumption about what was in his mind. I am saying that his financial contributions to them over a period of many years also included statements of some agreement with them over a period of many years, statements that he didn’t have to make. Either he was lying then about his beliefs, is lying now, has no beliefs at all and/or is a shape-shifter, or has changed his mind about a lot of things and cannot articulate why.
I haven’t a clue which one it is, because I make no assumptions. I merely point out the lack of congruence in what he says and does now and what he said and did then, as well as the fact that no one forced him to make those donations, or to express those beliefs (which he made freely in many interviews).
I appreciate your appreciation of my writing. And of course we’re not going to agree on everything, which is fine. I also agree about the tensions of this very difficult time. But I’m not making any assumptions here about Trump’s inner beliefs.
What’s more, however, if we are voting for a person, we need to know a lot about his/her beliefs, particularly political beliefs and principles. That Trump’s beliefs are essentially unknown, because of these contradictions, is one of the many things about him that is a problem. With a president we must know these beliefs pretty well. Unlike with a single comment by “Bilwick,” we’ve heard a great great deal from Trump, for over a year, speeches and rallies and debates and interviews. We are not basing any “assumptions” that we might have about his political beliefs on incomplete information at this point, or if our information about his political beliefs is incomplete at this point, that is Trump’s fault. There is no analogy with Bilwick’s comment here.
Just saw this comment at Instapundit. Though it deserved to be repeated–I think it about sums it up:
THE HILL: Experts hedge bets as election tightens. It’s Schrodinger’s election now: Hillary and Donald are each both President-elect and not President-elect, and they’ll stay that way until we open the box in a couple of days.
–Posted at 6:59 pm by Glenn Reynolds
T:
I’ve been meaning to comment on this: “As for “uncouthness” see Roger Kimball’s latest essay highlighting the Trump disturbance in Reno, NV yesterday. Read the whole thing.”
I read the essay.
Look, I’ve never said Trump doesn’t possess physical courage. He is a risk-taker and one bad hombre in many ways.
But the essay missed a big point, that goes to temperament and character.
The guy at the rally had a sign. Not a gun. A sign. I know Trump didn’t know it at the time (see my comment above). The guy also either was or was not beaten by Trump partisans. He was then led out, questioned, and released.
This was not, no where near an assassination attempt, but even today Trump supporters, even his own campaign, were still retweeting posts about an “assassination attempt”.
It’s the dishonesty. The 200 proof, day by day avalanche of dishonesty. Never thought I’d meet a politician more dishonest than HRC. A self-aggrandizing, 24/7 walking load of bull who lies for the fun of it. Who is even now plotting revenge on his enemies. Kimball’s article was about courage, not temperament.
“It’s the dishonesty. The 200 proof, day by day avalanche of dishonesty. Never thought I’d meet a politician more dishonest than HRC. A self-aggrandizing, 24/7 walking load of bull who lies for the fun of it. Who is even now plotting revenge on his enemies.”
Bill, that may not be the worst, but it certainly sums up in a couple of sentences why I couldn’t vote for him, or for her.
Interesting thread.
Everyone I know is anti-Trump and I would be making real trouble for myself if I spoke up about all the reasons why I see an anti-Hillary vote as rather imperative, even if, here in Oregon, my individual vote is fairly meaningless. So I’ve kept my mouth shut.
I’ve given up looking at more than a very few blogs, too, as it’s seemed for a while now like there’s nothing much to say until the vote. Trump seems likely to lose, but an upset wouldn’t be an upset if everyone saw it coming.
So we’ll see.
Neo: “I don’t see that at all. I think they are for a powerful, almost dictatorial executive, if that person backs what they want. In addition, I don’t think they have a libertarian bone in their bodies.”
My info is from wiki:
” Matthew Sheffield, writing in the Washington Post, said the alt-right has also been influenced by anarcho-capitalist and paleolibertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, specifically in regards to his theorizing on race and democracy, and had previously rallied behind Ron Paul in 2008.” A lot of what they do and believe reminds me of the Paulistas.
They are actually fairly diverse in their views except for their penchant for aggressiveness, especially in the blogosphere. They delight in snark and personal attacks, which makes them akin to the far left. They’re mostly young, white, college educated, and arrogant. In fact, they remind me quite a bit of the leaders of the campus protests of the 1960s.
If they gain real traction after the election, I fear we could be in for a reprise of the 1960s-70s violence. I don’t think they have the numbers or the taste for real violence unless it is stealthy bombings and other acts that don’t require physical courage. This is, however, one of the things we have to prepare ourselves for should Hillary become President.
If Trump wins, they might be a problem too. But I would hope it would be more in the nature of continued social media aggressiveness and trying to push their agenda, which would get huge pushback from the MSM, Dems, and regular Republicans.
The day after the election is only the beginning of the next chapter of a nation divided. In fact the campaign may have been quite sedate in comparison to what’s coming.
T: Also, not to pile on, but reports are that Trump’s staff have taken away his twitter privileges.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html
Temperament.
J.J.:
Yes, I am very concerned with post-election, whoever is elected.
But I disagree with Wiki, if Wiki says the alt-right has a significant libertarian presence or political philosophy. You quote Wiki as saying “the alt-right has also been influenced by anarcho-capitalist and paleolibertarian theorist Murray Rothbard specifically in regards to his theorizing on race and democracy, and had previously rallied behind Ron Paul in 2008.” I don’t know what paleolibertarian is in terms of what I know as libertarianism, but race is not much of an issue in libertarianism as I know it (which is based on liberty). It sounds as though these people are not actually libertarians but are some sort of fringe group even in the libertarian movement.
So looked up Rothbard’s views on race and democracy, and what I found is certainly nothing like libertarianism as I know it, or Ron Paul’s viewpoints either:
I don’t care what Rothbard called it, but I don’t call that libertarian. And most people wouldn’t either.
But I do agree that it is in line with what I think of as a fairly large segment of the alt-right. Scary guy, Rothbard. Scary group.
But if Rothbard was in charge, he’d probably make the trains run on time.
This probably won’t change anyone’s mind before Tuesday when the polls close:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/06/ben-howes-the-sociopath-explains-what-just-happened-to-your-country/.
Is Trump the sociopath, or just a Caesar-lite? You decide, fair or unbalanced?
OM:
Did you glance at the comments to the article you just linked? PJ has become somewhat of a mini-Breitbart these days, in terms of the commenters, so I knew the author would ignite a firestorm.
The article itself pretty much dovetails with my impression of what happened. As a tiny fish in this big conservative press/blogosphere pond—really, just a minnow, although bigger than a single-celled creature—I never felt a moment’s temptation to, as Ben Howe puts it, “ignore my gut and my moral compass.” That’s the saving grace of being unfamous. But the drawback of being unfamous is I really don’t have much influence, and my cries for reason and to look at the facts instead of listening to the shouts of inflammatory, demagogic voices (that very much includes many talk show hosts, for example, and the whole anti-GOPe crowd) were more of a whisper, lost in the din and the cacophony.
So, here we are.
As for whether Trump is a sociopath, I don’t think we can say. He certainly has a lot of traits in common with sociopaths.
Great thread, lots of comments by well intentioned people. As I have noted I will vote the straight R ticket on Tuesday because its neck and neck in Iowa. I will do so on the off chance hrc will not reach 270. It is a wrenching decision as Trump is a dangerous and unlikely vehicle for change in DC. I will vote not because djt is a ‘savior’ but because a defeat for hrc will be a shock to the dnc-msm axis.
I do not expect djt, if elected, to fulfill a single promise, in fact I expect him to seek to assume the mantel of FDR/LBJ. However, he would be a better manager of the New Deal 2.0 than hrc.
Reading the comments the last week or so I see that the vast majority (not all) of the discussion has been about Trump. You’d think he was the only person running. Whenever anyone talks about how bad Clinton is the replies mostly wind up back on Trump.
Most of the discussion about Clinton by the anti-Trump folks can be generalized as “we all know how bad she is, but she isn’t as bad as the pro-Trump folks say, so we will still be able to recover and fight again in 2020.”
Other than the assertion that she isn’t so bad that we will be able to recover in 2020, what evidence is there to support that. Lots of folks, me included, have stated our reasons for feeling the nation may not be able to recover from a democrat win this time. We believe this time is different for a number of reasons.
Illegal immigrants granted the right to vote in really massive numbers will forever change the electorate.
The left, by adopting Alinsky’s rules, has gotten much more effective against the right, who still seems to think they can fight by Queensbury rules.
The winner will control the Supreme Court for a generation at a minimum, and the left appointed judges vote in lockstep on every issue of importance.
If the left wins they will likely control at least the Senate as well. We have seen under Obama what they are willing to do, without regard for its unconstitutionality. Think of shocking executive orders to disobey federal regulations and the toleration of sanctuary cities.
The politicization of every organ of government in support of leftist causes.
The ceding of national power to our international enemies and to world government, and Clinton’s proven willingness to sell out our country to, not just the highest bidder, but to every bidder.
This is just a partial list, and once these things and others are done, they will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.
I would love to hear the arguments why these things are not so, and why Clinton would not be as bad as I think she will be, other than just the assertion that she won’t be.
My analysis is that, no matter what Trump’s faults, they don’t come anywhere near to hers. Even if everything I have heard here about Trump were true, he still would be a better pick for president.
Please convince me she won’t be so bad so I might not be so depressed if she wins.
Irv Greenberg:
We all agree on Clinton. She will be bad in predictable ways. There’s little to discuss. We don’t agree on Trump. Therefore, much to discuss.
It’s really quite simple in that respect. On comment threads and discussion boards, people talk a lot more about subjects about which they disagree most.
It seems to me that you want some sort of discussion that would be enough to convince you the others are right and you are wrong. And if they can’t do that, you think they should end up agreeing with you. Neither thing is going to happen, most likely.
Also, I’ve written quite a bit even in the last week or so on Clinton, and there certainly is some discussion of her on those threads. For example, this, this, this, and several others about the Comey announcement, as well as several about the election choice in general.
What’s more, most people do not say she won’t be as bad as he. They say she will be bad, and he will be bad. but he could be even worse, but what’s more they are both so bad it is almost impossible to say who would be worse.
You disagree. Fine. But all of this has been aired many many times—why people think he might be worse, how people think he might be worse, how they think she will be bad, how they think he will be bad, the fact that it is impossible to know, etc. etc. etc.
No one can talk you out of depression if she wins. You seem to not understand that people here who disagree with you are already depressed at the prospect of her winning. They are also depressed at the prospect of Trump winning, although it seems a less likely prospect. But one of the reasons they are against Trump is that they believe his nomination will lead to her winning.
“I do agree that it is in line with what I think of as a fairly large segment of the alt-right. Scary guy, Rothbard. Scary group.”[Neo @ 10:48]
and once again posted at Instapundit (@11:03):
I swear, the good professor is reading the comment line here.
This is a must-see.
A full-length interview by John Pilger of Julian Assange, in his sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy. Published yesterday.
Please pass this on to everyone, regardless of whom they vote for. “Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4
Terrifying.
Irv,
I think what really bothers those who are reluctant about Trump is the rabid support he gets from people who don’t question anything he does or says. Yes, Trump has toned down some of his more outrageous statements, but that has only happened because some of his team has resisted him. The Trumpsters from day one really would not have cared if he ad shot someone in Central Park. They are a non.thinking bunch who will turn on anyone not willing to provide Trump with the gun he needs for the shooting.
“We’re all working on assumptions here, no matter how fundamental we think our research has been. And I freely admit that backing Trump, reluctantly or not, I could be quite disappointed. I won’t be if my assumptions are correct, but then again, they are just assumptions.”
And
“We each will cast our vote without any guarantee that it represents the “correct” path in a high stakes game, without any guarantee that we will not be disappointed…” – T
That is very much along the lines of “You assume X, I assume Y… who’s to say which is correct? I could be wrong, you could be wrong.”
You boil it all down to the fact that we do have to make assumptions and that there are no guarantees they could be right, and then extend that to basically imply that all our arguments then should have equal weight.
Taken to its logical extension, I could “assume”
“clinton is inhabited by demons and trump is the second coming of Christ”
Really? Who’s to say?
This is where your argument falters.
.
Yet, you do see fit to challenge other’s statements calling them mere “assumptions”? Take this example:
“Do you know this for a fact or is it more accurate to say “his stated political beliefs seem to be often in line . . .?” You do not know what kind of game he was playing of if any game was being played at all. Perhaps true, perhaps not, but either way, assumptive…. you seem absolute in your knowledge of what is in Trump’s mind” – T
To which Neo responded…
“The beliefs that Trump stated. Over and over, many times, in his own words, lots of liberal beliefs about a number of things, over a period of years.” – Neo
You leave no room for evidence either way to provide some basis for coming to any conclusion.
That is just as wrong.
.
While I agree that we cannot know all there is to know, without going all the way into an epistemological dissertation, I think there is ground for taking some supporting evidence for a conclusion and discussing the merits of that.
The list of assumptions trump supporters are making that I provided hits at the heart of their argument. There have been significant grounds to challenge those assumptions provided by trump himself.
.
“the belief that Trump will remain as mendacious and mercurial as he is reputed to have been are assumptions” – T
You effectively dismiss trump’s character concerns as a rhetorical game trump is playing (citing a solitary point from a Hewitt interview).
You then transition, as a seemingly supportive point to that, to the unrelated issue of SCOTUS appointments by pointing to select things trump has said as your “evidence” for your belief / assumption about his resolve wrt those appointments.
The problem is trump has said many things that are very different from each other, and has repeated them too. You are being selective without really providing much for why that version should be believed over another version.
.
“That Trump’s beliefs are essentially unknown, because of these contradictions, is one of the many things about him that is a problem.” – Neo
T, I grant that trump has been “more” consistent on SCOTUS than on much anything else (the “Wall” probably the most consistent, and believable), but given context of all the rest, and how this is inconsistent with his past views, it is hard to come away with any solid belief on even this issue, that he wouldn’t scrap it or (“art of the”) “deal” it away in the face of minor opposition, or that he wouldn’t make this a “one time only” commitment.
Much of the rest of your points (e.g. trump is like Gen Patton) suffers from the same.
.
It just seems that the effect of this “everything is an assumption” argument, carried this far, is a way to give one freedom to make claims, but not face much argument about them in return.
That we cannot know to the nth degree all the information to prove a point doesn’t mean all “assumptions” are created equal, and absolve anyone from making the case for them.
.
However, at this point, the election will be what it will be.
Like cramming the hour before a final exam, there’s not much that will change in the outcome by efforts to debate trump as an acceptable choice at this late hour.
If minds cannot be made up at this point, they never will be.
“Also, I’ve written quite a bit even in the last week or so on Clinton, and there certainly is some discussion of her on those threads. For example, this, this, this, and several others about the Comey announcement, as well as several about the election choice in general.” – Neo
trump is on the news this a.m. claiming that “nobody” can read 650,000 emails in this short a period.
Sorry, trump, that is b.s. misdirection, or is a failure of understanding that is as colossal as clinton’s wrt her email server, if not even greater.
Fact is, it is not a huge technical challenge to sort through emails to narrow down their search to ones that that might be interesting and to filter out ones that they already have reviewed.
The days of thinking everything needs to be done with a Mongolian horde are long gone.
But, have to say, that is consistent with his view about repatriating manufacturing jobs. (Mfg output has increased at a relatively steady pace for decades, even though employment has decreased significantly over that same period – could it be that technology is replacing workers???).
“I think what really bothers those who are reluctant about Trump is the rabid support he gets from people who don’t question anything he does or says.” – expat
That is very much a key point. Too much is glossed over, or assumed away.
That coupled with the “Flight 93” style case wrt the next four years.
The latter allows people to justify most anything, even if they are not alt-r.
Expat – Telling me that some of his followers are bad is irrelevant; that’s always true of every candidate.
Neo – Being against Trump because you believe that his nomination will lead to her winning appears to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The fact that Clinton is a known and everyone agrees means there’s no doubt about how bad she will be. The fact that there is so much disagreement about Trump means there’s a great deal of doubt about how bad he will be.
I really wonder how the anti-Trump folks can be so positive in the face of so much doubt, to the point that they won’t even consider taking a chance on someone so many others see to be not as bad as she. I fail to see how anyone can be so sure of what he will do when he has never been in politics before.
Is it not possible that a better nature could come through when the stakes are so much higher than money? Is it not possible that his patriotism could overcome what you consider to be his failings? Are you so sure that those things aren’t possible that you’d allow someone like Clinton to get into the most powerful office in the world?
To give up in the face of certain ruin, rather than take a chance, no matter how small, is just not in my nature. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt in that I will never join “those timid souls that will neither know victory nor defeat.”
When I taught junior high school math I had a sign on my wall that said “If you try, you might fail, but if you give up, you will fail!”
Neo:
Regarding comments on the Ben Howe video posted at Pjmedia.com, I agree that Pjmedia.com has drifted towards the Breitbart axis. Desperation in reaction to the prospect of a Hillary victory?
I have stopped reading comments at nearly all other blogs and I only comment here.
Big Maq,
“You effectively dismiss trump’s character concerns . . . .”
The fundamental flaw in your entire comment is that you equate qualification of an argument with dismissal of it.
“While I agree that we cannot know all there is to know, . . . I think there is ground for taking some supporting evidence for a conclusion and discussing the merits of that.”
I agree, and the only way to do that is to draw assumptions from the supporting evidence. You make my case.
“It just seems that the effect of this “everything is an assumption” argument, carried this far, is a way to give one freedom to make claims, but not face much argument about them in return.
It’s quite simply an argument against the surety of one’s positions, anyone’s positions. In other words, most people argue from this point of view: “Well, your reading of the evidence leads to assumptions whereas my reading of the evidence is based on fact. I see it as it is.” This is precisely why neither side of the argument continuing at this site can rarely see any benefit in the argument of the other side.
One’s use of the verbs “is” and “isn’t” underly an argument based on a factual belief, and such language is thrown around in this discussion quite a bit. Like all of us here, I, too, plead guilty to doing that. Most arguments, however and in your own words, “[use] some supporting evidence for a conclusion . . . discussing the merits of that.” That is assumptive.
Now I’m not chiding such arguments, nor am I saying that they are invalid. You write that “[I] leave no room for evidence either way to provide some basis for coming to any conclusion.” That is also not true. All I’m saying is that we need to recognize the assumptions we bring to our argument. In the case of this election, we are arguing for the future based on elements of the past, (e.g., This will happen if Trump is elected,” or “Our Republic is at an irreversible point.”). We don’t know any of that to be true.
In my business we say that “Past performance is no guarantee of future results,” but we use the past all the time to try and divine the future. Sometimes past performance does produce predictable results, sometimes it does not, and those predictions can only be verified if/when they come to pass. Sometimes we are correct, sometimes we are wrong. Likewise, we need to acknowledge the assumptive nature of our arguments in this political discussion. Our arguments might, at times, include factual statements, but our conclusions are a series of assumptive links which lead us to the decision we make.
“However, at this point, the election will be what it will be.
We certainly agree on this!
I know this is the wrong thread to post this on, but the correct thread has disappeared down the memory hole. One of the weaknesses of the blog format IMO.
Here is the link to Netanyahu’s testimony before Congress in 2002 (not 2003) I promised to provide.
You will see a rationale for attacking Iraq first out of the three, Iraq, Iran and Libya that is different than the immediate concern that Iraq was violating the UN sanctions.
As you can see, Netanyahu’s claims are more than the evidence found– He did not have an “active nuclear program” and while chemical and biological weapons were found, not the evidence that he was “pursuing, pursuing [them] with abandon..”
Here are a couple of statements from his testimony:
“There is no question that he had not given up on his
nuclear program, not whatsoever. There is also no question that he was not satisfied with the arsenal of chemical and
biological weapons that he had and was trying to perfect them constantly, if “perfect” is the word to describe this
ghoulish enterprise.
So I think, frankly, it is not serious to assume that this
man who 20 years ago was very close to producing an atomic bomb spent the last 20 years sitting on his hands. He has not. And every indication that we have is that he is pursuing, pursuing with abandon, pursuing with every ounce of effort, the establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
If anyone makes an opposite assumption, or cannot draw the lines connecting the dots, that is simply not an objective
assessment of what has happened. Saddam is hell-bent on
achieving atomic bombs–atomic capabilities as soon as he can.”
_______
“The first thing you did after the wakeup call of September 11th was that you took on the first regime that directly perpetrated that catastrophe. You removed the Taliban regime, and you scattered al Qaeda, although it has not been completely destroyed yet.
Now what is your next step? Knowing that three of these
nations are developing nuclear weapons, this is not a
hypothesis. It is fact. Iraq, Iran, and Libya are racing to
develop nuclear weapons. So now what is the next step? I
believe that the next step is to choose–it is not a question
of whether you have to take action or what kind of action and against whom.
I think of the three, Saddam is probably in many ways the linchpin because it is possible to take out this regime with military action, and the reverberations of what happens with the collapse of Saddam’s regime could very well create an implosion in a neighboring regime like Iran for the simple
reason that Iran has–I don’t want to say a middle class, but
it has a large population that is–that might bring down the
regime just as it brought down the Shah’s regime.
So I think that the choice of going after Iraq is like
removing a brick that holds a lot of other bricks and might
cause this structure to crumble. It is not guaranteed. The
assumption of regime removal in Iraq and implosion in Iran and implosion in Libya is an assumption. It is not guaranteed. But if I had to choose should there be military action first against Iraq or first against Iran, I would choose exactly what the President has chosen to go after Iraq.”
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg83514/html/CHRG-107hhrg83514.htm
Now you can rightfully argue Netanyahu didn’t speak for the Bush administration, but he was influential in their decision making process. He was well regarded.
Brian E:
And your point is what, to defend Trump’s rants and hatred of all things Bush (just a little exaggeration from me :))?
T:
Your arguments could just as easily be used to support Hillary. For instance, she has never really been in a position of authority because she had a boss who ultimately decided the important things. How much actual input was she allowed? In the Goldman Sachs speeches she indicated she had a public position and a private one. We assume she will act as president on the basis of her past stated positions. That may not be the case. As you argue or dismiss Trumps past positions in support of abortion rights and socialized medicine, so too the same can be argued for Hillary. How do we know she will not abandon or set aside many long held beliefs in the face solid Republican opposition in the House in order to get a bail out for her owners on Wall Street, should a crisis necessitate? If nothing else is certain about Clinton, Inc. it is that they take money for favors and can be bought. All of these dire predictions about the end of the world assume she is a leftist ideologue hell bent on finishing up Obama’s transformation. That is certainly not what the 40-50% of Democrat voters who supported Bernie thought. Quite the opposite, they believed she is the left version of Trump, someone who can be bought off, and with strong evidence to back up their beliefs.
Assumptions can work both ways, eh Mr. T?
Before the attacks begin, what’s posted above is a Devil’s Advocate argument, nothing more. No way in hell would I support HRC.
““You effectively dismiss trump’s character concerns . . . .” – Big Maq
The fundamental flaw in your entire comment is that you equate qualification of an argument with dismissal of it.” – T
I don’t see much “qualification of an argument” in your exchange with Neo who countered your rather unqualified assertion:
“He contributed to Dems because as a New York real estate financier, that was the seat of power (New York city–deep blue). Now one might want to say well that’s because Dems are buyable and Republicans are not, but any who believes that is still waiting for their next phone call regarding Nigerian oil. IMO this reveals Trump as a greater pragmatist than people give him credit for being.“ – T
But does it, really?
Just saying “IMO” doesn’t make all that much of a “qualification”, and you are drawing a conclusion based on your implied observation that this is practical (e.g. something that would be common practice).
.
Neo challenges you because there is reason to believe there are motives beyond simply being “pragmatic”.
1) Because he espoused left positions consistent with those he was supporting:
“Trump not only gave money to Hillary et al, he praised her tremendously. He praised Pelosi and lots of other liberal Democrats. Plus, he espoused many many liberal positions.” – Neo
2) trump is an anomaly among successful business people who get ahead without providing such support:
“In addition, he didn’t have to give them money in order to be a real estate developer. Plenty of business people on the right don’t do so, and they do just fine in business.” – Neo
You respond that it is just all an assumption:
““We’re all working on assumptions here, no matter how fundamental we think our research has been” [T to Big Maq @ 7:05]” – T
.
Please don’t say this wasn’t a dismissal.
It is effectively the same as when you respond that…
“the belief that Trump will remain as mendacious and mercurial as he is reputed to have been are assumptions” — T
As your response to…
“Those arguments rest on assumptions about what trump will do, but do not answer why one particular version or interpretation of what he says should be believed over the others he’s said — to say nothing about how his past support for dems and dem policy no longer informs his inner core of ideas.” – Big Maq
.
If the response to some points made about trump’s own behavior and how it relates to a given issue is…
“But, that’s just your assumption, and I just want to qualify it as such”
we get back to square one…
“Who’s to say that it is wrong that I believe trump wears panties because he once talked about men wearing panties with Howard Stern?”
There becomes no effective grounds to discuss any differences.
The “assumptions” argument is being used to nullify any objection whatsoever.
Andrew Klavan has done a good job of summarizing my position on this election at: https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/11/06/why-ill-vote-for-donald-trump/
Please read what he has to say and think about it seriously before you vote. Thanks.
Brian E:
And your point is what, to defend Trump’s rants and hatred of all things Bush (just a little exaggeration from me :))?- OM
____
OM, First this comment makes more sense in context of the discussion on this thread: Victor Davis Hanson and the non-Trumpers
Why is it relevant? It’s a time capsule into the rhetoric that was going around during the build up to the Iraq War.
Looking at it now, it is at best, hyperbole or exaggeration by Netanyahu. But that was the argument being made.
Add to that what we know now about Ahmed Chalibi, the report by Scott Ritter in 2000, I am drawn to the conclusion that the immediate risk was exaggerated and the Bush administration was played.
Or one could draw another conclusion, depending on your political viewpoint.
In one sense this reminds me of the Vietnam War. We were told, by the liberal press, that the Tet Offensive was a terrible loss, that the NVA were winning, that it wasn’t worth the cost. All exaggerations at best or lies if you want to ascribe malevolent motives to them.
I was a supporter of the Bush administration. I defended every argument made. Looking back at it, I’m not so certain (and I had a gnawing sense then) that what was happening was a justification for the Iraq War using the UN sanctions violations, but that was more a pretext for a greater strategy of regime change.
It may have been the correct decision. If we do one thing, we can only guess what would have been the consequences of doing another.
Am I trying to justify Trump’s statements made in 2008? No, I’m not, but it may have that effect. Just the same as the objections to Trump by some commenters isn’t an attempt to dissuade voters from casting their vote for Trump, just an explanation of their reasons why they won’t support him.
I see now the previous comment by me should have been posted on the VDH and Non-Trumpers thread.
@T – re: above, won’t hold it all against you 😉
Have appreciated your input along this sad journey.
There is probably much more common ground to be found with those reluctant trump supporters than there is disagreement with never trump / never clinton gang.
Trump is a clown, Hillary is a criminal.
Democrats value social status foremost, so they can’t vote for a clown.
Republicans value rules, so they can’t vote for a criminal.
Everybody loses.
For a nutshell of the simple anti-American propaganda against which Eric combats regarding the actual casus belli against Iraq, yet to which Scott Ritter was pleased to attach himself, see: Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear and the Selling of the American Empire
sdferr,
I watched your link, and I found it to be an extreme conclusion.
I also watched this unfold, and have given credible evidence why their were other justifications for the war beyond the UN sanctions violations.
At 11:59 before the 12 am war began, Saddam tried to make concessions to prevent the attack, which were rejected by the Bush administration.
Were those legitimate? Could we have negotiated Saddam’s ouster without war? It was like there was all this momentum and psychological buildup to prepare for war and we couldn’t stop that momentum.
We had spent a lot of money preparing for war, placing troops and material. But that pales in comparison to the cost of the war.
Does being a conservative require acceptance of policies one views as a mistake?
“@T — re: above, won’t hold it all against you.” {Big Maq @ 11:33]
Assumptive and patronizing?
As I have said in previous posts. These are nothing more than our opinions, and outside of (and likely even within) this forum, nobody really cares what we think regardless of our persuasion.
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
[the song is making the rounds… whats good for the goose is even better for the gander]
Let’s return once more to the proximate origin of the question at hand, namely the discussion about Trump and Pres. G.W. Bush, which does arise from within the precinct given voice in that short leftist video propaganda:
This, this is a policy question?
No, surely not. Hell, Scott Ritter thought more (both quantitatively and more seriously) about the policy questions than Donald Trump, and yet Ritter still manages somehow to arrive at the position of a useful idiot for the extreme political left, and by means of his thinking. Trump, who demonstrates to us no such thinking at all manages to arrive in much the same useful idiot’s position without needing the least bit of it.
“Only I can solve” makes one hell of a motto though.
Matt_SE:
Once more, although I’m really getting weary of saying the same things over and over, but here goes: “Trump is a clown” is a reductionist, simplistic, and IMHO incorrect characterization of him. I don’t think he’s a clown at all.
But more importantly than that, even people who DO think he’s a clown are not refusing to vote for him for that reason alone, or even that reason primarily. Even those who think “Trump is a clown” is a correct statement as far as it goes, it doesn’t go far enough at all. They would say “Trump is a clown, lying, con man, loose cannon, ignorant, partly leftist, SOB,” for starters.
And for that matter, “Hillary is a criminal” doesn’t cut it, either. Hillary may or may not be a criminal, technically speaking, but more importantly she’s a liar, a leftist, etc. etc..
These one-word definitions of the objections to both candidates are reductionist and misleading, and present an incorrect picture of the situation we face.
I agree, though, that America loses, this election, whoever wins.
T:
Did you see the smiley face next to the “I won’t hold it against you” remark?
Brian E:
Eric has many quite a detailed take downs of Trump’s “arguments” regarding the Iraq war. It is well-plowed ground. Trump’s dog don’t hunt as they say.
I’ve made a nuisance of myself I’m sure with multiple posts about the upcoming demise of the GOP if it doesn’t right the ship and quit trying to be a white’s only party. I guess in a way I agree with the demographics doomsayers here – 2004 might very well be the last presidential election the GOP wins, but for reasons that are the fault of the GOP itself, not democrats. We’ve (well, “they’ve”, I’m not in the GOP at least temporarily until they reform and if Trump wins I’m not in the GOP forever) failed to make a case for conservatism that crosses ethnic lines. The fact that there was a wide racist streak to Trump’s “appeal” has done perhaps irreparable damage.
With that in mind, I found this article very interesting – a portion is quoted below (emphasis mine):
Again, if the GOP is determined to be a whites-only party, it’s on the autobahn to oblivion, and it will have to try to win without voters like me.
Time for a new conservative party, I think.
The Bush foreign policy establishment is firmly against the Republican nominee. Dozens of former Bush 43 officials have signed a letter casting Trump as dangerous to America’s national security. Signees of this letter such as Eliot Cohen, Meghan O’Sullivan, and John Negropronte were all intrinsically involved in the Iraq war.
“Most Washington establishment Republicans have views much closer aligned with Washington Democrats than with Republican voters,” a former senior official in the George W. Bush administration told The Daily Caller. “On the national security side this phenomena is even more pronounced. The majority of the Republican national security policy people I’ve met are really liberal on domestic matters. There is some genuine concern with Trump’s character and demeanor within this group but at least as much of the shift to Clinton is reflective of these people’s views being closer to Hillary Clinton’s than to most Republicans.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/04/much-of-bush-world-is-lined-up-against-trump-and-many-are-supporting-clinton/#ixzz4PLbVRdQf
____
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Can’t be any surprise at all from those ungrateful bastards, who, we’re told, deserve nothing less than a horse’s swift kick.
And for those who can’t persuade themselves to cast a vote for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump on account that they’re both Democrats, ah well, perhaps the Republican Party will discover the use of nominating a Republican on their next go-round.
Brian E – two things.
1. If I had to choose between GWB and DJT for President, I’d choose GWB 1000 times out of a 1000.
2. DJT has said some crazy things about foreign policy. He’s expressed an extreme lackadaisical position on nuclear proliferation, for example, and has cast doubt with our allies that he would honor NATO treaties. Because who cares if Putin decides to roll over Estonia with tanks?
Brian E:
Eric has many quite a detailed take downs of Trump’s “arguments” regarding the Iraq war. It is well-plowed ground. Trump’s dog don’t hunt as they say –OM
I’ve laid out some of the reasons for my uneasiness with the lead up to the war and now, having the benefit of hindsight, to conclude it was a tragic mistake.
Brian E,
I watched and read about the Iraq situation from across the pond. I saw Saddam blaming the US for the starving Iraqis, and I saw European journalists fall for it. I saw us having to push for no-fly zones to protect Iraqi civilians. I saw the UN pushing to give Saddam another chance, believing as usual that they could talk him into conceding despite the fact that all the do-gooders hadn’t moved him an inch in a decade. I also read that there was a window of opportunity for the attack based on weather, troop stationing and other things. Saddam probably knew this. He probably knew that he only had to delay an invasion for a short time, after which e would have had maybe a year to do what he wanted.
I saw us being blamed for te starving Iraqis, even after oil for food was implemented. What I didn’t learn to later that Saddam was using the oil money to bribe French, Russian, and UN people.
Saddam understood the stron-man culture in that neck of the woods, and he probably knew that he could not survive giving in one iota to the US.
After 9/11, I went to bed for weeks with a prayer on my lips, Please Lord let us get this right because if we don’t, no one else can or will. This was based on my years of observing the European desire to believe in utopia.
Bill,
1. That’s not the choices this time around. It’s either going to be DJT or HRC.
2. It’s inevitable that Saudi Arabia will end up with a nuclear weapon if Iran ends up developing one. They are mortal enemies. Trump is adamant to kill the Iran deal and re-establish sanctions to get them to abandon the nuclear program, not delay it. So I think Trump is on the right side of this.
As to Japan and South Korea, what other countries around them would feel threatened if these countries developed their own weapons? Would it necessarily lead to greater proliferation?
The EU’s total GDP is slightly higher than America’s, yet it contributes only 25% of NATO’s defense budget, while the US accounts for 72%, and Canada and Turkey supply the rest. One problem is that NATO members’ commitment to spend at least 2% of its GDP on defense is not nearly enough.
The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense, and there is no reason why the EU should be spending less than the US, given the manifold threats it faces, from Russia to terrorist incitement by the Islamic State. And they’re not even spending the 2%. So Trump is right to force the EU to increase spending on their own defense.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nato-members-defense-spending-by-jacek-rostowski-2016-09
Brian E
1. I know GWB isn’t running. But if you’re asking me to choose between GWB’s foreign policy experts and DJT’s, I choose GWB’s every time. In other words, I don’t know what point you’re trying to prove. DJT was a pig to question John McCain’s bravery and sacrifice, and an idiot to repeat Code Pink talking points about GWB.
Period.
2. “It’s inevitable that Saudi Arabia will end up with a nuclear weapon if Iran ends up developing one. They are mortal enemies. Trump is adamant to kill the Iran deal and re-establish sanctions to get them to abandon the nuclear program, not delay it. So I think Trump is on the right side of this.”
Trump is right if he wants to kill the Iran deal, but it is not inevitable that Saudi Arabia gets a nuke. This is nonsense on stilts. Saudi Arabia is an ally.
I don’t know about you, but a world with Trump running the superpower’s military and nukes proliferating everywhere is a world that I won’t sleep very well in.
3. “The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense, and there is no reason why the EU should be spending less than the US”
Sure there is. We are the free world’s remaining superpower.
Maybe you don’t think we should be a superpower. I feel safer when we are, provided we don’t have a maniac at the helm.
Regarding whether NATO should contribute more – perhaps they should. But Trump has shed doubt on the US’s intention to honor the treaty we’re already in. This is incredibly reckless.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s a “negotiating technique”. But this isn’t negotiating on which floor of the Casino the strip club will be located. This is the stability of the free world.
Trump doesn’t understand diplomacy. I guess in Trumpistan diplomacy is “cuck”.
Given Trump’s apparent admiration for and affinity with Putin, this is incredibly scary.
expat,
Good points. I’d forgotten about the horrible abuses of the food for oil program.
It was a mess.
Bill,
Is Saudi Arabia really an ally? They’re probably responsible, more than any other country, for the rise of extremist Muslim ideology with their world-wide export of Wahhabism.
It’s unfortunate we didn’t wean ourselves from Saudi oil in the 80’s after the the oil embargo of 1973.
“Is Saudi Arabia really an ally? They’re probably responsible, more than any other country, for the rise of extremist Muslim ideology with their world-wide export of Wahhabism.”
On paper, yes. Your second sentence is a great reason why we’d prefer they not go nuclear.
“It’s unfortunate we didn’t wean ourselves from Saudi oil in the 80’s after the the oil embargo of 1973.”
We finally have a chance to do that – with the fracking revolution and increasingly advanced drilling and production technology energy independence is possible. I certainly hope we go that way. Although I know with a likely HRC presidency that will slow down.
3. “The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense, and there is no reason why the EU should be spending less than the US”
Sure there is. We are the free world’s remaining superpower.
Maybe you don’t think we should be a superpower. I feel safer when we are, provided we don’t have a maniac at the helm. – Bill
If the NATO countries were fulfilling their obligations to provide for their own defense, that would free up our military resources to contain other potential threats. It’s a win-win. We’re still a superpower and the EU is supporting their own defense.
Thanks for the defense, Neo. I couldn’t have said it better myself. No, I wasn’t trying to show off my intelligence and/or education. I went to a public college, and am too embarrassed by the fact that the taxpayers were forced to pay for my education to crow much about it. I apparently got good intelligence genes from my parents but that was just a roll of the genetic dice. What my post was about was the stupidity of the Dumb Trumpkins, at least the ones who post on Disqus.
“If the NATO countries were fulfilling their obligations to provide for their own defense, that would free up our military resources to contain other potential threats. It’s a win-win. We’re still a superpower and the EU is supporting their own defense.”
But the whole purpose of NATO is that we have agreed to help protect those countries. If they provide for their whole defense, what’s the purpose of NATO?
We’re not doing this because we’re selfless and generous. The idea behind NATO is Russia is a superpower and the countries of Europe need a superpower in their corner. Plus we weren’t real keen on all those countries building up huge armies (NATO was born a lot closer to the end of WWII than we are now. Memories were fresh of Germany’s build up before both WWs).
Maybe NATO is a bad agreement now. Fine. But what you DO NOT DO is signal to the countries currently under NATO that you are this way-that way about protecting them if Putin decides to steamroll over them. That is very destabilizing.
Trump treats everything like one of his Casino deals. It’s like he doesn’t understand the significance. By all means, have talks with our NATO partners about the terms of the treaty. By all means, if it’s deemed important enough, hold their feet to the fire. But we are bound by honor (a trait unbeknownst to Trump) to adhere to the treaty.
The alternative is military build-up everywhere in Europe and destabilization.
Neo, Murray Rothbard is called one of the father’s of the Libertarian movement in the U.S.
From Wiki:
Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 — January 7, 1995) was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a revisionist historian, and a political theorist whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism.[
Of course Libertarianism covers quite a span of beliefs. The small l libertarians are primarily focused on smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and freedom of association and speech. Over at the other end you have those who want no government at all, laissez faire capitalism, and no borders. I hadn’t seen much in the way of racism among libertarians I’m familiar with and I didn’t think the Paulistas were racists. But Rothbard’s brand of Libertarianism had a racial component to it.
In later years Rothbard began calling himself a Paleolibertarian.
From Wiki:
“Paleolibertarianism sought to appeal to disaffected working class whites through a synthesis of cultural conservatism and libertarian economics. According to Reason, Rothbard advocated right-wing populism in part because he was frustrated that mainstream thinkers were not adopting the libertarian view and suggested that former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and Wisconsin U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy were models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks” effort that could be used by a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition. Working together, the paleo coalition would expose the “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass.” Rothbard blamed this “Underclass” for “looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”[123] Rothbard noted that David Duke’s substantive political program in a Louisiana governor’s race had “nothing” in it that “could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites.”[125]
This sounds a lot like the alt-right to me.
Back when the Soviet Union was a superpower, NATO served a purpose. Russia is a shell of it’s former power, though Putin leverages it’s assets effectively it seems.
We saved Europe’s bacon, but that doesn’t mean they should get to eat lunch for free forever.
Now, I suspect that some in Europe wouldn’t view a closer alliance with Russia as a threat– unless you happen to be one of the eastern European countries, who’s memories of the Russian bear is still fresh. But then they’re spending closer at or above the required minimum.
It’s those freeloaders like France and Germany that need to pony up.
Of course, we could keep borrowing the money from China to provide for Europe’s defense.
Brian E:
Get your facts straight. France was never part of NATO, never, has been. France has pursued it’s own view and own strategic interests irrespective of the US or our allies in NATO.
OM,
Well, if you can believe Wikipedia, then this:
France was an original member, withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defense system but returned to full participation on 3 April 2009.
@JJ – thanks for the info.
I had passing familiarity with his name, and his association with libertarianism, but didn’t know that much about him or his ideas. I presumed it was the same as other “mainstream” libertarian views.
This election I found it rather confusing that some libertarians were early supporters of trump.
Now I get it!
If Rothbard thinks like this, then they may well be followers of his view.
There is something about ends justifies the means in that kind of thinking. Too bad, because now “libertarian” may not mean what I think it means (i.e. kind of like “liberal” used to mean something different) and I have to ensure a distinction. I knew about “anarcho capitalism” (I think one of Reagan’s sons advocates that, IIRC, or maybe that is Milton Friedman’s son, or both?).
J.J.:
Yes, I know he’s called one of the fathers of libertarianism.
But my point is that libertarianism as we know it is a far far cry from what Rothbard advocated. Calling him a libertarian is like calling Stalin a liberal.
Seriously.
Libertarianism is a big big tent, which segues into anarchism of various kinds. And anarchism is where anarchism of the right and left blur together, although they are different.
I wrote a post about that once.
By the way, I keep wanting to spell his name with a “t” on the end instead of a “d.” With a “t” it’s the name of the evil wizard in “Swan Lake.”
Brian E:
You are correct, and I apologize. My speed reading fails again!
🙂
I understood the anarcho- part, but I just didn’t see any compatibility of any part of libertarianism with support for trump.
I don’t see a place for that in the libertarian portion of the Nolan Chart.
The way Rothbard is described, it is kind of like arguing for freedom for me (and my group), but not for thee.